Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Training and Enterprise Councils

Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils were operational in (a) March 1990 and (b) January 1992.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): There were no training and enterprise councils operational in March 1990. The full network of 82 training and enterprise councils has been operational since last October. That has been achieved as the direct result of the enthusiasm and support of key business and community leaders throughout the country.

Mr. Bowden: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Will he join me in congratulating the TECs on the part that they are playing in promoting the local economy? Having in mind my own South Thames TEC in south London, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the acceptance, success and street credibility of the TECs have been greatly enhanced by the emphasis that they put on the enterprise element of their make-up?

Mr. Howard: I am delighted to respond to my hon. Friend's invitation and I entirely agree with his remarks. The success of the TEC movement is the result of an unprecedented partnership between business leaders and the Government across the country—[Interruption.] I note that sedentary observation of the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), which no doubt represents the Labour party's true attitude to training and enterprise councils.

Mr. Ray Powell: What financial controls and supervision do the Government exercise over TECs? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make a statement on that matter?

Mr. Howard: Money is made available to training and enterprise councils in return for their performance in pursuance of a contract that they make with me. The way in which and the extent to which they perform and adhere to the terms of the contract are carefully monitored. Indeed, complaints are frequently made that too many monitoring requirements are made of TECs.

Mr. Devlin: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that unit costs and the availability of placement s will not be the same for employers in different parts of the

country? I know that he recently considered this matter at a meeting with the northern TECs, but will he further consider the plight of some regions where costs are slightly higher than in, say, the south-east?

Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend that unit costs are not always the same in all parts of the country. I hope that he agrees that that does not mean that differences that are difficult to justify should be perpetuated indefinitely. We have a duty to obtain the best value for money for the taxpayer. That frequently means that some of our negotiations are tough.

Mr. Blair: Is not the real problem facing many TECs the fact that their funds are being cut at a time of recession and rapidly rising unemployment? Will the Secretary of State now answer for the record the question that he has consistently refused to answer? How many employment training and youth training places have been cut in the past two years? How many fewer places are there today than there were two years ago?

Mr. Howard: The point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) related to unit costs. The allegations that have been made by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) go further and further into the realms of fantasy. We are continuing to deliver the youth training guarantee. We are making sure that employment training is making its full contribution to the aim and guarantee groups for the long-term unemployed. Such comments come a bit rich from the Opposition, when they have opposed each and every training initiative that we have introduced during the past 12 years and when we are spending two and a half times as much in real terms as the Labour Government did.

Unemployment (Leicester)

Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment in the city of Leicester; and by what numbers and what percentage it changed in 1990.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Jackson): In December 1991, unemployment in the Leicester local authority district was 16,421 on the unadjusted basis. During the year to December 1990—the year about which the hon. and learned Gentleman asked—unemployment regrettably increased by 1,941, or 20 per cent.

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister recognise the terrible burden that increasing unemployment in the city of Leicester and elsewhere places on the people involved and their families? Some of the unemployed are young, some are old and many have never been unemployed in their life. Does the Minister accept the definition that recession is when someone else is out of work, depression is when one is out of work oneself, and the only hope of recovery will be when the Government are out of work?

Mr. Jackson: Of course we understand the difficult position in which unemployment places many people. The hon. and learned Gentleman made an epigram out of it. He picked up the word "depression". One of the psychological problems associated with unemployment is depression, and the range of measures that we have put in


place to assist unemployed people can help with it. One example is job clubs. I visited one yesterday. They are successful and helpful devices to help people out of the isolation of unemployment. The fact is that 25 per cent. of people who sign on at our jobcentres leave the register within a month, 50 per cent. leave the register within three months and two thirds leave the register within six months; so there is a flow through the unemployment register.

Industrial Disputes

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many days were lost in industrial disputes in the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): There were 765,000 working days lost in the 12 months to November 1991. This is the lowest total for the same period for more than 70 years.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that that figure is a vindication of the Government's step-by-step approach to the reform of industrial relations? Does he further agree that the time has come for a period of consolidation?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is correct. Those dramatic figures reflect several things, not least the steady and progressive reform that the Government have undertaken in industrial relations. That reform has also given us one of the most successful inward investment records of any country, certainly in the European Community and arguably in the world. Who can dispute the fact that, if the figures were not as I have just announced and if industrial relations had not improved, we could not have attracted our record level of inward investment from across the world? That investment has created many well-paid and well-founded jobs for our people.

Mr. Lewis: Should not those figures be considered alongside the 352 million lost days which have been engineered by the Government since 1979?

Mr. Forth: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means, but I regret that, as ever—and typically of Labour Members—the hon. Gentleman seems to glory in gloom and despondency in identifying the more negative aspects of things, rather than looking at the positive. As a country, how can we expect to attract inward investment and have the confidence of overseas investors if we hear such remarks from Labour Members?

Mr. Dickens: Do not the figures also herald the demise of the flying pickets, rent-a-mobs, people with crowbars, people who fire ball bearings at horses and place cheesewire across the throats of horses and people who drop concrete slabs off bridges, all of which would stop inward investment into the United Kingdom? Those days have gone, thanks to our measures.

Mr. Forth: Those days have gone only so long as a Government are in power who are determined to continue a regime of common sense and reasonable and balanced industrial relations. If there were ever a Government who had a different view of industrial relations and a different

relationship with the trade unions, who knows whether events such as my hon. Friend mentioned might not occur again?

Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister agree that, as Northern Ireland has the fewest days lost through stoppages or industrial action and is governed by the same industrial relations legislation as Great Britain, it should be in a special position to attract inward investment?

Mr. Forth: Yes. I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman has brought to the attention of the House and of the world outside the fact that Northern Ireland has so much to offer as an area for investment, both from the rest of the United Kingdom and from beyond. That, together with the strenuous efforts made by everyone in Northern Ireland at local and provincial levels, means that we can look to the future with some confidence, and I am delighted to endorse what the hon. Gentleman said.

Holloway Employment Office

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest available figure for registered unemployed and recorded vacancies at the Holloway employment office and jobcentre; and what was the equivalent figure for January 1987.

Mr. Jackson: There were 11,978 unemployed claimants and 32 jobcentre vacancies remaining unfilled in the Holloway area in December 1991, on the unadjusted basis. That compares with 13,221 unemployed claimants and 241 unfilled vacancies in January 1987. The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that unemployment in the Holloway area has fallen since 1987.

Mr. Corbyn: Unemployment may well have fallen since 1987, but it has increased a great deal in the past year. Will the Minister explain what he is going to say to the people of the Holloway area who find themselves in the unenviable position of having the jobcentre with the largest gap between the number of vacancies and the number of registered unemployed? There are just 32 vacancies. Will he assure the people of that area that there will be an increase in employment opportunities and an end to the public spending cuts in the area, and will he guarantee the continuation of the job club, which is threatened with closure?

Mr. Jackson: I shall certainly look into the position of the job club. Jobcentres are not the only places where vacancies are available. The fact is that last month the increase in the total number of vacancies notified to jobcentres throughout the country was the highest on record.

Mr. Leighton: The Minister will know that the Holloway area includes a prison and that the admirable Apex Trust works in that area. Is he aware that the chief inspector of prisons, Judge Tumim, has deplored any possible demise of the Apex Trust, that the Archbishop of Canterbury is raising private funds for the trust and that the Secretary of State received an all-party delegation to ask for a rescue package for it? What assurances can the Minister give the House that the valuable experience of the Apex Trust over 27 years is not to be destroyed?

Mr. Jackson: I know from my personal experience of the valuable work that Apex has been doing. The


administrator looking into the affairs of the Apex Trust will come forward with proposals, and when we see them we shall consider them. At this stage, we are not in a position to say anything about them.

Strikes

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many days were lost in strikes in the 10 years prior to 1979 and the 10 years since.

Mr. Forth: There were 72 million working days lost in the 1980s, nearly one third of which—22·3 million werelost in the 1984 miners' strike alone. The total for the 1970s was 129 million, nearly twice that for the 1980s.

Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and for those sensational figures. Does he agree that that improvement has occurred because we—the Government—have given the unions back to their members? Does he further agree that the Labour party wants to sign up to the social chapter only in order to regain its power by having beer and sandwiches at No. 10? Is that what the past is all about—the 156 Members sponsored by unions who are turned on by that prospect?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out what is blindingly obvious to Conservative Members but escapes Opposition Members—our reforms have been to do with giving power to individual trade union members and restoring accountability and responsibility to trade unions and their leaders. Much though my hon. Friend may dream about the days of beer and sandwiches, I should have thought that the Opposition were so besotted with Europe that it would have to be café and croissants, if that change ever came about.

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Dennis Skinner. Happy Birthday!

Several Hon. Members: Happy Birthday.

Mr. Skinner: For the first 10 years of the Government, the cry that used to come from the Dispatch Box was that the economy was in a mess because of strikes by workers. Who is causing the slump now?

Mr. Forth: I do not recall any such incidents, but the economic difficulties that we inherited between 1979 and 1980 were indisputably due to the winter of discontent, which was a direct result of the relationship between the then Labour Government and the then trade unions. We now have a different trade union movement and a different Government, with the result that the figures show an all-time record of peace in industrial relations. That is the difference.

Citizens Charter

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on how the citizens charter will affect matters relating to his Department.

Mr. Forth: The Department is meeting all the commitments that we made in the citizens charter White Paper. The Employment Service has published the jobseekers charter setting out clearly the high standards of

service which the public can expect in all its offices. Charter principles are being applied to all areas of the Department's work.

Mr. Riddick: Is not the jobseekers charter further evidence of the Government's clear commitment to improve public services? I notice that the Minister is wearing his name badge. Of course, he is well known to everyone in the House and to many people outside. Will he assure me that my unemployed constituents will no longer be dealt with by faceless bureaucrats but will be dealt with by individuals who are clearly identifiable and that my unemployed constituents will be treated as individuals?

Mr. Forth: I am delighted to confirm that we will do as my hon. Friend has asked. He shows his usual great concern about the level of service given by the Huddersfield jobcentre to his constituents. I assure him that those constituents who seek help from our staff in the Huddersfield jobcentre, and in other jobcentres throughout the country, will find that the charter means that they can identify the people with whom they are dealing because they are wearing name identification badges. There will he targets for waiting times, for answering calls and for the promptness and accuracy of benefit payments and customer satisfaction surveys will be carried out. The charter will give people who use public services the opportunity to judge the quality of the service and to seek redress, if that quality of service is not offered. That is a major advance in the concept of public service of which the Government are rightly proud.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Whatever the citizens charter is or is not meant to do, will the Minister assure us that it is certainly not meant to replace his Department's statutory obligations in relation to the tragic accidents with which the Health and Safety Executive should deal? I am grateful to the Minister and to his Department for the speed with which they dispatched members of the Health and Safety Executive to the scene of the tragedy in my constituency at BP Grangemouth yesterday. Sadly, one of my constituents lost his life in that tragic explosion. Will the Minister ensure that his Department keeps me advised of all developments relating to that sad event?

Mr. Forth: I join the hon. Gentleman in expressing our sorrow at that tragic loss. Regrettably, too many people lose their lives in the construction industry which, as is well known, is one of the most hazardous industries. Together with the HSE, we are constantly working to improve safety levels. I gladly give the undertaking for which the hon. Gentleman asks and we will keep him well informed of the findings that emerge from this most recent accident. On that basis, we have asked the Health and Safety Executive and the Health and Safety Commission to consider what contribution they can make to the overall citizens charter initiative to ensure that companies or individuals—whichever are concerned—have the same rights with regard to those organisations as they have with regard to other government and quasi-governmental bodies. That is something that we are keen to see, and I am confident of getting a positive response from the executive and the commission shortly.

YTS (Eccles)

Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will state the number of youth training scheme places available in Eccles.

Mr. Jackson: Management of youth training in Eccles is the responsibility of the Manchester training and enterprise council. In the current year, the training and enterprise council has a youth training budget of £16·1 million, and about 7,430 young people are currently in training.

Miss Lestor: Will the Minister cast his mind back to the letter that he wrote to me last October—a soothing reply to the representations that I had made to him—pointing out that the Salford careers service, which covers my constituency, had forecast a shortfall of between 400 and 450 YTS places? As I say, his reply was most soothing. May I inform him, as he has not answered my question, that the same careers service says that nothing has changed and that the same number of young people will not get YTS places, that many of them are fed up with turning up, only to be told that nothing is available and that the continued recession and closures mean that hundreds of them will have nothing to do?

Mr. Jackson: We followed up the representations that were made by the hon. Lady and by others on that point, and the regional offices of the Department of Employment have been in negotiation with TECs to try to establish the extent to which they need additional resources to meet the YT guarantee. That has taken place throughout the country and has led to substantial additional resources being provided. I shall be happy to reconsider the position in Manchester and Eccles, although I know that it is being carefully considered.
There is an issue, which the hon. Lady must recognise, involving the careers service figures. There has been a great national exercise, co-ordinated by the careers service nationally and by my Department, to establish the true position. It is accepted by the careers service that the figures are rather crude, that they consist of people who register an interest in YT and that there are various problems about counting those people as actual demands for YT places.

Employment Action (Basildon)

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to visit employment action training services in Basildon to discuss the quality of provision.

Mr. Jackson: Although we are carrying out an extensive programme of regional visits, neither my right hon. and learned Friend nor myself, alas, plan to visit Basildon in the immediate future. I know that employment action is operating well in Essex. The Essex training and enterprise council is to be congratulated on its efforts to get the employment action initiative off the ground so quickly.

Mr. Amess: Is my hon. Friend aware that I opened J. and J. Training Services in my constituency last week and that its programme is already providing an environmental study centre at Basildon zoo, a garden for St. Luke's hospice at Basildon hospital and recreational facilities for the Charitable Printers Trust and that it is restoring old

churches in my constituency? Does my hon. Friend agree that such a programme not only provides high-quality training but helps to enhance life in our local communities?

Mr. Jackson: I agree with all those points, and the Essex TEC is to be congratulated on its success in getting those programmes off the ground. Particularly important is the contribution that EA will make to ensure that unemployed people are given an opportunity to keep their work skills and work records up to date.

Labour Statistics

Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the increase in United Kingdom unemployment during the past 12 months.

Mr. Howard: United Kingdom seasonally adjusted unemployment rose by 703,700 in the year to December 1991.

Mr. McAllion: Is the Secretary of State aware that the management of the Albacom factory in Dundee are taking advantage of the circumstances of mass unemployment by sacking more than 100 members of the work force for the crime of taking industrial action, within the terms of the Government's employment laws? Will he join me and civic and religious leaders in the Dundee area in condemning such management action as an affront to natural justice? Will he also explain why we have one of the few remaining Governments who still refuse to give legal protection to workers when they take legitimate and justified industrial action?

Mr. Howard: I am not aware of the circumstances of the particular case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If he will write to me about it, I will look into it. It has always been the law in this country—including under the previous Labour Government, even when the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) held my office—that if people broke their contract of employment and went on strike, it was legitimate for them to be dismissed. That has always been the position, but I shall look into the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Sir Michael Neubert: Does my right hon. and learned Friend share my concern about the disproportionate impact of unemployment on the construction industry, which it is estimated will have lost 250,000 building operatives, some perhaps never to return? Will he do all he can, through the Construction Industry Training Board, to ensure that an adequate supply of skill is available to meet the demands of recovery in the longer term?

Mr. Howard: Yes, I certainly share my hon. Friend's concern. The Construction Industry Training Board is doing an excellent job in difficult circumstances. It is doing all that it can to ensure that skilled people will be available to meet the demands that will undoubtedly be made on the construction industry as the economy recovers from recession.

Mr. O'Hara: Can the Secretary of State offer any advice to the daughter of a constituent of mine who has recently become an unemployment statistic? She is a highly qualified research scientist whose contract, funded by the pharmaceutical industry, has come to an end. Having signed on and said that she was looking for a job as a research scientist, she was advised that she should think


again. When she asked what she should think again about, she was advised to train for office work. What advice would the Secretary of State offer that young lady, apart from consulting the job seekers charter?

Mr. Howard: A wider range of help is available for unemployed people now than ever before. Those who work extremely hard in our jobcentres give the best advice available to individuals who come in. Unemployed people now have individual interviews and help in preparing a back-to-work plan. Those who advised the hon. Gentleman's constituent no doubt knew the circumstances of that locality far better than I do.

Mrs. Currie: Does the Secretary of State agree that, to obtain a balanced view, we must consider not only unemployment but employment and self-employment, which grew steadily during the 1980s under the Government and is set to grow further in the 1990s under the same Government? Is he aware that, when I asked about the growth in employment in south Derbyshire recently, I was told that figures were available only until 1989, that they are collected only once every six years and that figures for self-employment are collected only once every 10 years? Surely that is not good enough.

Mr. Howard: I rather agree with my hon. Friend. We hope to make those figures available, on a localised basis, much more regularly and frequently in the future. However, national and international figures are available and they show that a greater proportion of this country's work force is in work than in any other European Community country except Denmark. We do not hear much about that from the Opposition.

Mr. McLeish: Will the Secretary of State come clean and say why his Government have the worst jobs record of any post-war Government in Britain? Why have 2·4 million manufacturing jobs disappeared since 1979? Why has unemployment risen by 1·45 million since 1979? Tory polices do not work and the tragedy is that, in Britain every month, 30,000 people join the dole. When will he do something about that deplorable record?

Mr. Howard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the fact that unemployment has been rising in most European Community countries and that it is higher than it was a year ago in every EFTA and G7 country. If he was really concerned about unemployment, he would persuade the Labour party to abandon its minimum wage and jobs tax proposals and its embracing of the European Community social charter, all of which would add hundreds of thousands of people to the dole queues.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that some of the unemployment has been brought about by the so-called peace dividend? Would he care to contemplate what unemployment in Scotland would be if the bases at Leuchars, Lossiemouth, Kinloss, Rosyth and Coulport were to close and if Rolls-Royce, Yarrow, British Aerospace and other defence manufacturers did not receive work because Scotland was a separatist country?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. I am sure that it will be fully appreciated by the people of Scotland when they assess the parties' policies at the election, including the policies of those who

advocate a lesser or greater degree of Scotland's separation from the rest of the United Kingdom. Those policies and their effects will weigh heavily in the balance.

Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of people in the United Kingdom who are economically active, unemployed and not receiving unemployment benefit.

Mr. Howard: In spring 1990, there were 870,000 people in the United Kingdom unemployed on the internationally recognised International Labour Organisation definition, but not included in the monthly claimant count statistics. That compares with 540,000 people in the claimant count who were not unemployed by the ILO definition.

Mr. Evans: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that that incredible figure does not tell the entire story? Will he confim that if unemployment figures were counted today on the same basis as they were in 1979 employment Ministers would be forced to stand at the Dispatch Box and admit that the number of economically active people who are unemployed in Great Britain today is 3·75 million?

Mr. Howard: No. I certainly do not accept that. I do not see any basis for the figure that the hon. Gentleman advances. It certainly has no basis in the figures that I have just given him in answer to his question. As the hon. Gentleman knows, whenever we make comparisons the figures that we quote are adjusted backwards to ensure that we quote them on a truly comparable basis in all instances.

Mr. Alexander: Since the Opposition, clearly, try to make the worst of the current figures, would it not give a truer picture if we looked at the figures of only five years back? Is it not the case that in the east midlands, my area, for example, unemployment is 30,000 fewer than five years ago?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right and I agree with him. Not only do the Opposition always seek to make the worst of the figures, but they would make the figures very much worse if they ever had the opportunity to put their disastrous policies into effect.

Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons are currently unemployed and claiming benefit.

Mr. Howard: On the seasonally adjusted basis there were 2,546,000 unemployed claimants in December 1991.

Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Secretary of State realise that the British people have rumbled him and his colleagues? They know the true level of unemployment. They know about the misery of people who are unemployed, but are not even counted in the unemployment figures because of the way in which the Government have fiddled those figures. Before the Secretary of State rattles on yet again about European figures, our minimum wage policy and our alleged doom and gloom, and as he has proved himself completely unable to say anything constructive, will he today at least ask the Prime Minister to chuck it in now, call an election and let us get on with the job?

Mr. Howard: If the hon. Lady knew what was available to those of her constituents who are unemployed, she would know that we offer a wider range of help to


unemployed people than has ever been available in this country before. About half of those who are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs leave unemployment within three months. We are doing everything we can to keep that period of time to a minimum. Instead of dwelling on portraying the figures in the worst possible light, she should work with us to reduce that time.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that unemployment across the whole of the European Community is higher than any of us would like? Does he accept that the way to solve the problem is for workers to provide goods and services that are competitively priced? Does he welcome today's news that factory output prices are the lowest for many years?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend has correctly identified that it is only by constantly improving the competitiveness of British industry that jobs will be created. We have in place a framework that will ensure that this country is uniquely advantaged to make the most of the opportunities that will become available in the 1990s. As we emerge from the recession that will become increasingly apparent.

Training Programmes

Mr. McCartney: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from the chairmen of the north-west training and enterprise councils concerning the level of funding of training programmes.

Mr. Jackson: My right hon. and learned Friend and I have frequent meetings with TEC chairmen from all parts of the country, in which we discuss a range of issues, including questions of funding.

Mr. McCartney: When the Under-Secretary met the TEC chairman did he apologise for the 97 per cent. increase in unemployment in the north-west since the Government took over? Furthermore, did he give a commitment to replace the 8 per cent. cut in the youth training budget for this year, which is in addition to the 12 per cent. cut last year? Does he accept that, as the TEC chairmen advised him, if that money is not replaced, some TECs will not be able to meet the guarantee of a youth training place in some places in Greater Manchester in Lancashire? Is it not an indictment of this Government that, with the high levels of unemployment, young people cannot get a grant-aided training course?

Mr. Jackson: TECs throughout the country are currently deep in negotiations with the regional offices of my Department. I do not think that it would be appropriate for Ministers to get involved in those local negotiations, least of all from this Dispatch Box. Since the hon. Gentleman mentioned YT in particular, I may say that we are investing £842 million in YT in 1991–92 and the figure for the year starting in April is £851 million. We are committed to the YT guarantee and we are providing the funds to honour it.

Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that many leaders of local industry are giving their time and experience to ensure the great success of TECs all over the United Kingdom and that it is imperative that we, the Government, ensure that they are properly funded?

Mr. Jackson: I note what my hon. Friend says and I share his appreciation of the immense efforts being made by TEC board members from business and from other sectors of the community throughout the country. What he had to say about funding is duly noted. We are currently in discussion with the TECs about their budget and I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to comment on the particular circumstances of my hon. Friend's local TEC.

Mr. Wareing: If the Government are so committed to training, how does the hon. Gentleman explain the letter from the Merseyside TEC to Hexagon Community Ltd. in my constituency, telling it that output-related funding is to be cut by 25 per cent. next year? I received a telephone call just before Question Time telling me that that enterprise will have to close. This is in an area of very high unemployment. When the Government mouth words like "people", "jobs" and "training", they should try to convince us that it is more than hypocrisy.

Mr. Jackson: I have had a letter this morning from Hexagon training and I shall be answering it in due course. The relationship between particular providers and particular TECs must be a matter of negotiation between them. Neither of us is in a position to make a judgment about that situation. But I shall certainly be looking into the circumstances of the provider who has written to me.

Courts (Sequestration Power)

Mr. Janman: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to alter the power of the courts to sequestrate the assets of trade unions.

Mr. Forth: None. Sequestration is a penalty which courts may impose where an organisation or individual commits contempt of court. It is an essential ingredient in the range of measures which may be needed to discourage such contempt.

Mr. Janman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the ability of employers to take out injunctions to prevent unofficial strike action and the ability of the courts to sequester the funds of unions that ignore such injunctions can act as a very firm and much-needed last line of defence against industrial anarchy? Does he agree that it would be an act of the most amazing folly to tamper with the provisions that currently apply, and yet that is exactly what the Opposition are committed to doing if they win the general election?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has made a very important point, which I suspect will become more important as we approach the coming election. It is quite clear that this power available to the courts is essential to deal with contempt of court when it emerges as a result of abuse of trade union power or trade union positions. For any political party that makes any pretence of seeking the government of this country to want to remove from the courts the sanction that my hon. Friend has described as so essential is utterly irresponsible. It gives the lie to the real relationship that exists between the Labour party and the trade unions, and that will not go unnoticed. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to give a fair hearing to the last few questions.

Skill Training

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the skill training programme.

Mr. Jackson: There is no central Government programme under the label "skills training", but we are, of course, committed to ensuring that high-quality skills training is provided for the 380,000 people who are currently participating in Government-funded training programmes throughout England and Wales.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that Japanese employers in Wales recently expressed concern about the level of skills of possible recruits? Is he also aware that human skills are the major determinant of success or failure? Is not it a sad reflection on the Government that after 12 years they have failed to provide the necessary skills training for our work force to make our industries competitive in world markets?

Mr. Jackson: That charge, coming from an Opposition Member, is quite unacceptable. More than 3·1 million young people have taken part in youth training since 1983. In 1979, when we came to office, only 6,000 young people were on training programmes sponsored by the then Labour Government.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that employers and the TECs should be congratulated on the fact that, despite difficult economic circumstances, they are continuing to train people for the period, which will shortly come, when under a Conservative Government we shall be re-expanding the economy and employment?

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is right. The regular CBI surveys and the regular Department of Employment labour force survey show that over the 1980s—this is the answer to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes)—there has been a consistent increase in employers' commitment to training, even in this current recession.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. MacKay: In the light of yesterday's public sector pay settlements, which were particularly welcomed by teachers, will my right hon. Friend give the House some broad indication of just how many teachers will now be earning more than £20,280 a year? Will he also use this opportunity to give a categorical pledge that under no circumstances will he lift the ceiling on national insurance contributions, because that would, in effect, claw back the extra pay that teachers gained yesterday?

The Prime Minister: I can tell my hon. Friend that well over 120,000 teachers exceeded £20,000 a year even before

yesterday's pay increases. We anticipate that something over an extra 50,000 will now do so. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we will not remove the limit and impose an extra 9 per cent. national insurance on those teachers.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister join me in reaffirming that no group either using or supporting violence will be allowed by any Government to bomb its way to the conference table? Does he agree that when terrorists inflict danger and disruption on ordinary people anywhere—in Britain, Northern Ireland or anywhere else—they are not so much demonstrating their support for any cause as demonstrating their hatred and opposition to every community?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I am happy to agree without reservation with the points put to the House by the right hon. Gentleman. If terrorists believe that incidents like this morning's will deflect our policy on Northern Ireland, they are mistaken. They have not been successful in the past, and they will not be successful in the future.

Mr. Andy Stewart: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Stewart: When I last had the opportunity to question my right hon. Friend, he confirmed that under the Conservatives, miners and other earners in my constituency would not pay a higher rate of income tax. Can he confirm that he will not extend national insurance contributions to savings, because a large number of my constituents took early retirement from the coal industry and use their savings to supplement their income?

The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend that guarantee. Conservative Governments have reduced the taxation on savings. We have abolished the investment income surcharge, and have cut the standard rate of income tax to 25p in the pound. We have introduced savings schemes such as TESSAs, and we believe that excess taxation is iniquitous when we seek to encourage people both to save and to invest in our economy.

Mr. Lewis: Does the Prime Minister recall that in 1986 he announced the closure of DHSS resettlement centres and gave a firm promise that they would not close until alternative accommodation was available? Is he now aware that four centres, including the Walkden centre in my constituency, will close next month and that alternative provision is not yet available and will not be available? Is the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, going to allow the Resettlement Agency to rat upon his pledge or is he not?

The Prime Minister: I set out at the time the details of the areas where we would see new and better facilities reopening, and those better facilities have reopened. In addition, the hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Government are also spending very nearly £100 million over three years to provide accommodation for people who are homeless in London. So far nearly 2,000 extra bed spaces have been provided, and the number of people who are out on the streets is substantially lower than 12 months ago. The hon. Gentleman would do well to acknowledge those facts.

Southampton

Mr. Hill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will visit the city and port of Southampton.

The Prime Minister: Tomorrow.

Mr. Hill: When my right hon. Friend visits the port of Southampton he will realise that two Conservative policies have changed the position of the port from stagnation to prosperity. The first policy was privatisation and the second the abolition of the national dock labour scheme. All the hospitals in Southampton have been rebuilt over the past few years. There is only one fly in the ointment—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman ask his question—but briefly please.

Mr. Hill: My right hon. Friend will know that there is a Labour-controlled council. Not only are its policies extremely wasteful, but one of the companies that it set up is just collapsing, insolvent, and this is costing £8 a head to every community charge payer in the area.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend puts his point with great clarity and in some detail. Southampton is already part of a highly successful privatised group of ports. In some of the privatised ports, ending restrictive practices has led to an improvement in productivity of 50 to 100 per cent.

Engagements

Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Thompson: Is the Prime Minister aware that, after a little local difficulty in the House, there was a meeting this morning between the Engineering Employers Federation and the northern group of Labour Members, at which one of the representatives of the federation said that the Department of Trade and Industry suffered from inertia? Will the Prime Minister consider removing this inertia from the DTI by sacking his Secretary of State?

The Prime Minister: No.

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Taylor: Does the Prime Minister agree that there is an increasing role for responsibility and involvement of individuals in improving their career prospects, whether through training credits for young people or through performance-related pay? Are these not better ways of improving the skills of British industry than the rigid structures favoured by the feudal barons of the trade union movement?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend. I entirely agree with the training credit principle which puts buying power in the hands of the people who seek training. If my hon. Friend will be

patient, I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will shortly have some comments which will please him.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Has the Prime Minister seen today's Financial Times? If he has, has he noted the three pages of advertisements by receivers and administrators of companies that have failed? The exercise is repeated in the columns of the Financial Times three times a week. Is it not clear that, in the light of all these industrial failures, it is the failure of the Government which really needs to be brought to account, and that it is the Government's task to put things right?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the essential basics to make sure that things are right are to keep inflation down, to keep interest rates down, to have the right tax structure and to continue with the improved industrial relations that we have had in recent years. With his experience, the right hon. Gentleman will also be interested in the views of the CBI. If he is, he will know that the CBI opposes absolutely the reintroduction of the labour laws that the Opposition propose, the tax changes that the Opposition propose and the minimum wage that the Opposition have in mind. Each of those policies would be deadly to the future of British industry, British jobs and British companies.

Sir Anthony Grant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Sir Anthony Grant: Will my right hon. Friend warn other world leaders, especially in the United States, of the dangers of a wave of trade protectionism and the catastrophic effect that it can have on the world economy in a recession? Will he emphasise to the Americans in particular the need to reach sensible agreements within GATT?

The Prime Minister: I have had the opportunity of discussing that with President Bush on a number of occasions, and he is as committed to a speedy conclusion of the Uruguay round as we are. I believe that that is vital. The paper set out by Mr. Dunkel provides a basis round which the United States, the Cairns group and the European Community could rally to provide a satisfactory settlement. That settlement is as vital for the future of the international trading organisation as any other matter under consideration.

Mr. Martlew: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Martlew: In a response to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on Thursday, the Prime Minister made it clear that he would not be supporting the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill, which will come before the House on Friday, but did not clarify whether he is in favour of a ban on fox hunting. Will he take this opportunity to tell the House and the country whether he favours such a ban?

The Prime Minister: We always examine legislation before the House with great care. The Bill before the House is not adequate.

Dame Jill Knight: In connection with an incident that my right hon. Friend has mentioned already, is he aware that hon. Members and staff were unable to work in their offices at 1 Parliament street between 9.30 and 12.30 because of three IRA bombs placed in Whitehall? Is he further aware that immediately the road was made safe, but before any traffic was allowed to pass, there was a demonstration by IRA supporters, well equipped with banners and placards? Does he not feel that, as they were so ready to move and so well equipped, they knew all about the IRA bombs and probably the timing as well? Will he ensure that the police are given the photographs of that demonstration, taken close up by the media?

The Prime Minister: I was not aware—I have riot yet received reports—of that demonstration, but I believe that it is ironic that the IRA and its supporters should at the same time be enjoying the privileges of democracy and using the methods of terrorism. I can assure them that they will have no progress until they renounce violence and terrorism. I believe that that is the united view of all the parties in the House.

Mr. Grocott: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Grocott: Does the Prime Minister recall that it is now more than 12 months since he first started dithering about the election date, since when 750,000 peole have lost their jobs? Is it not about time that he said to the 44 million voters who are sick and tired of the phoney election campaign that the general election will be on 9 April? When will he have the courage to say that?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will know that in the last year we have also cut interest rates seven times and halved inflation. I have no doubt that when we come to the election the electorate will have spotted that as well.

Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is the first Prime Minister in history to attend the annual general meeting of the National Farmers Union? Is he aware that the warmth of his reception was genuine, as the farmers very much appreciate his understanding of their difficulties with the planners and with marketing? Is he aware that they welcome his determination to do all he can to improve their lot, both at home and abroad?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I certainly enjoyed my attendance at the National Farmers Union meeting this morning. I was able to talk to the farmers about the difficulties that their industry faces at the moment, the need for reform of that industry and the importance that farming will undoubtedly have in the future of our country.

Mrs. Irene Adams: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some months ago.

Mrs. Adams: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that I, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), recently wrote to him pointing out that the Paisley post code area lost 76 per cent. of its manufacturing jobs between 1979 and 1989 and a further 3,600 jobs since then? Does he recall that he replied that he did not consider those circumstances grim enough to undertake an economic initiative for Paisley? Will he now change his mind or shall we have to wait for the people to do that for him?

The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Lady ought to be clear about what she means by assistance. When the Labour party speaks of incentives it means subsidies. Perhaps the hon. Lady will remember the success rate of the National Enterprise Board. It invested in 102 firms, of which one third went bankrupt or went into receivership. Less than one third of those firms returned the taxpayers' investment. The right way to help manufacturing industry is to produce the right level of inflation and the right economy for people to make their own decisions.

"People, Jobs and Opportunity"

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the White Paper "People, Jobs and Opportunity" which I and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales are publishing today.
The White Paper highlights the momentous changes which are taking place in the nature and patterns of work; it describes the implications of those changes for the future direction of our policies; and it sets out a new agenda for action designed to widen even further the opportunities and choices for people at work.
A key feature of the last 10 years has been a new and growing emphasis on the role and importance of the individual employee to business success. Employers are increasingly recognising and responding to the aspirations of their individual employees and rewarding individual performance. People at work have new opportunities to choose working arrangements which suit them and their families; to have a say in the direction of the organisation for which they work; and to influence their own development. The tide of collectivism—based on trade union representation and collective bargaining—has been decisively reversed.
If we are to meet the competitive challenge of this decade we must build upon the changes which are taking place. We must open up new opportunities for people at work. We must enable the potential of each and every individual person to be released. That is the vital task for the 1990s. This White Paper sets out what needs to be done. It contains 14 new proposals. I shall confine myself this afternoon to a summary of the most important.
First, we propose a number of possible changes to employment law to extend the rights of individuals. These proposals, on which we would welcome views, will enable people at work to get more comprehensive information from their employer about their terms and conditions of employment including any changes to them, and information about the training they will receive. We shall also be consulting on whether to clarify the law relating to training contracts. This would make it clear that it would be open to employers and employees to agree that if an employee left his employment prematurely after the employer had made a substantial investment in his training, the employer could recover a reasonable proportion of the costs.
At the same time we shall continue to oppose proposals for excessive regulation of relationships between employers and employees which would threaten our competitiveness and put jobs at risk.
Secondly, we shall continue to promote the development, by voluntary means, of employee involvement and of responsive and flexible pay arrangements which reward individual achievement. And we shall oppose attempts by the European Commission to impose inflexible and uniform models of employee relations.
Thirdly, we shall encourage the spread of new and more flexible ways for people to learn and train at their own pace in their own time. We shall enable libraries to make available to the public vocational learning materials and back-up services. We shall also test out a new system of

credits to enable unemployed people to purchase training materials which they can use at home and so combine learning with active jobsearch.
Fourthly, we shall continue to tailor the help that we offer to unemployed people to the needs of individuals. And we are already expanding the special help available in 1992–93 through our employment and training programmes so that almost a million people can benefit.
Fifthly, we shall work with other member states for a European Community which supports an increase in the number of jobs available, respects the diversity of employment practices and gives individual people the freedom and opportunity to choose working patterns and arrangements which suit them. During our presidency of the Community in the second half of 1992 we shall promote a new employment initiative—to share good practice between member states in helping unemployed people back to work and to push discussion of employment and unemployment issues higher up the European agenda.
Finally, in May last year my right hon. Friends and I published White Papers about our plans for the education and training of young people into the next century. We announced our aim by 1996 to provide training credits to all 16 and 17-year-olds leaving full-time education. Training credits signal a revolution in the way in which the Government support training and development—a revolution which gives young people the power to choose the path which suits them best.
Today I am announcing an important new initiative to provide credits to people in the adult work force. Individuals will be able to use the credits to purchase a "skill check" where, with expert advice and guidance, they will be helped to take stock of their existing skills and experience, identify how they can improve their skills and map out their future training and career options. By placing purchasing power in the hands of the people concerned we shall transform their attitude to training and to the opportunities that are available to them.
The initiative—[Interruption.] The reaction of Opposition Members shows how much they really care about these vital matters that affect the future of our people. The initiative, which will be introduced from April 1993, will be run locally by training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies in Scotland, which we shall be consulting about the precise arrangements. Our plans will benefit a quarter of a million people in the first two years. If the initiative is successful and cost-effective, we shall extend it across the country.
The issues discussed in this White Paper are vital to our future. My aim is to help to create ladders of opportunity for all our people—ladders which start at school and continue throughout working life. Qualifications must be made available to the millions of people who have always regarded qualifications as being to do with other people, not them. And we must provide a framework within which individual achievement and national prosperity go hand in hand.
We have already achieved a great deal. This White Paper charts the way forward. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Tony Blair: First, let me deal with some of the points of policy—in so far as there are any.
The news of greater access to adult careers guidance is, of course, agreeable, but would it not be better to try to extend such access to everyone in the Community,


unemployed or employed, through the careers service? As for the proposal for adult credits—which obviously mirrors the youth training credits idea—is it true that, as has been said in some of the newspapers, no extra resources will be provided for the programme? If it is true, and a transfer from existing resources is proposed, where will the cuts be made?
The idea of training programmes being specified in the contract of employment is also perfectly acceptable, but why not follow through the logic of that position and ensure that all young people who leave school and go into work do so with the proper training contract, so that the scandal of hundreds of thousands of young people leaving school and going into dead-end jobs with no training can end forthwith?
The one new proposal that the Secretary of State has advanced—he was very coy about it in his statement, as opposed to the press briefings—is that employees should be liable to pay the cost of the training that they have received if they move to another job. It is proposed that payment should take the form of either a financial penalty incurred by the employee or a transfer fee to be paid by the recruiting employer.
That proposal, surely, represents a fairly fundamental concession on the part of the Secretary of State—the admission that a purely voluntary approach will not work. We welcome that concession. Unfortunately, having identified the problem correctly, the Secretary of State has come up with the wrong solution. The idea of transfer fees has been kicking around the personnel-manager circuit for many years, and has been rejected for at least two reasons.
First, the reasons why employees leave their employment, having received training, may be unconnected with "poaching". An employee may want promotion, for instance, or a spouse or partner may be leaving to find work in another part of the country. Is the Secretary of State seriously contemplating the forcing of a penalty on people in such circumstances? Such action might be utterly unfair, as well as constituting an enormous obstacle to the free movement of labour.
Most people, however, have rejected that proposal as a way forward because of the problems involved in policing such a system, and because the disputes that arise under the training contract are myriad. Apparently, the Secretary of State has proposed in the White Paper that industrial tribunals should take on the role of regulating those disputes. Is he aware that, at present, the waiting time for industrial tribunal decisions is as long as three, four or six months, and sometimes longer? What is an employee supposed to do—wait in a state of suspension while the matter is resolved by a tribunal before changing jobs? The Secretary of State has opened up an interesting line of argument, but I think that he will find it difficult to stop where he is.
Surely, however, there is one fundamental question that the country will ask. The White Paper is entitled "People, Jobs and Opportunity". How can the Secretary of State credibly say that he is protecting people at work when his party alone among all the parties in Europe—Labour or Conservative—opposed the European social charter that guarantees the existence of such standards? Why is the right hon. and learned Gentleman apparently prepared to legislate to give people details of their contracts of employment, while denying them the right to decent terms and conditions of employment that is enjoyed everywhere else in Europe? Why not allow part-time employees to be

given the same status as full-time employees? Why not give them the right to a decent holiday entitlement, which is still denied to millions in this country; the right to proper maternity leave; the right to child care; and freedom from discrimination?
The Secretary of State may talk of individual rights, but he cannot understand that, if real justice and opportunity are to be secured for many individuals, they will require a strong and active Community to legislate on their behalf. How can he credibly say that his party defends jobs when only today we have learned that 2,000 jobs are to go at Gateway, 300 at Pottertons in Tyne and Wear, and 300 at Rolls-Royce in Glasgow? One million people have joined the dole queue since the right hon. and learned Gentleman became Secretary of State, yet not one proposal in the White Paper creates a single job for the millions who are out of work.
How can the Secretary of State pose as the Minister of opportunity when over the past four years £465 million has been cut from youth training and £900 million from employment training—and when, all over Britain, the Government's guarantees to the young and the unemployed are being broken even as we speak?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's is not a party that joins people to jobs and opportunity, but one that has separated millions of people from jobs and denied millions more opportunity. The only jobs that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues are interested in saving over the coming weeks are their own at the election, but, as with so much else over the past 13 years, they will fail in that, too.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful that, on this occasion at least, the hon. Gentleman has found it possible to welcome at least some of the proposals in the White Paper. I shall deal in turn with the various points that he raised.
The hon. Gentleman asked first why the assessment credit, the skill check credit, is not to be made available to unemployed people. The fact is that unemployed people already have access to a range of programmes through the employment service, including job review workshops, which provide precisely that service for those who are unemployed. If the training and enterprise councils think it appropriate to make some of those funds available for unemployed people, they are perfectly free to do so.
As to where the money is to come from, it is true that the proposals will be funded from within my existing resources—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] It is typical of the Labour party that it loses sight of the possibility of being able to get better value for money and of being able to improve the extent to which and the way in which we can help people without always asking the taxpayer to fund more. We shall make the necessary funds available to fund those initiatives. In due course, I shall discuss with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury exactly from where the money is to be found within existing resources.
On training credits, as we have repeatedly made clear, it is perfectly true that the best approach for young people is a voluntary approach. We think that the best approach is to place buying power in the hands of young people. We reject the compulsory route that is favoured by the Labour party, which will never understand that the way forward is to motivate and to encourage and to give people the


incentives that they need to make the most of the opportunities that are available to them, not simply to rely on the dead hand of compulsion.
On the proposal that the training contract should make it possible for employers to recover the cost of their investment in training, the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman referred can be reflected in the contract. Far from it being a departure from a voluntary approach, it is a voluntary approach: it depends upon a contractual relationship being agreed between the employer and the employee. The difficulty that has arisen—and one of the obstacles to progress in that area—is that there has been doubt about the law. Many people have thought that such contracts were not enforceable. That is why it is important to clarify the law.
The true attitude of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the Labour party emerged in his final two points. He talked about the European Commission's social action programme. He is blind to the independent studies that have been carried out on that programme, such as that by Professor Snower of Birkbeck college, which demonstrates clearly and beyond doubt how damaging those proposals would be to the creation of jobs in this country.
In his concluding remarks, the hon. Gentleman had the temerity to talk about the job losses that have been announced today by Gateway. Of course, I regret those job losses, but the hon. Gentleman has surely seen the article in The Independent on Sunday a week last Sunday which spelt out clearly the devastating consequences on jobs in the retail trade of his proposal for a national statutory minimum wage. How dare the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party claim to be concerned about jobs when they have put forward a package of proposals that would decimate employment in this country and confine millions of people to the dole queues. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of the lip service that he has paid to employment by continuing to outline such policies.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the House that we have a busy day ahead of us, including a ten-minute Bill motion. I will allow questions on the statement to go on until 4.15 pm. I hope that hon. Members will ask questions about the White Paper and not make wider points.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that during the past 25 years successive Governments have never quite got it right on training, which is so essential to our future prosperity? An exception to that is the past few years when we have made significant progress. This White Paper is another jump forward.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend further agree that the Opposition spokesman showed his lamentable inexperience of industry when he talked about poaching? In fact, companies which train properly and successfully over several years bitterly resent other companies which do not indulge in training taking their workers. That is a problem with which my right hon. and learned Friend is trying to cope. The example shows exactly that the Opposition are not in touch with what is going on.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. He speaks with the considerable experience of someone who served as a Minister in the Department of Employment. Perhaps I can confirm what he said by reference to one statistic. Between 1984 and 1990 there was an 85 per cent. increase in the number of people in work receiving training. Of course, more progress needs to be made, but that statistic is some indication of the progress that we are making and have made.

Mr. James Wallace: The Secretary of State said that he would have to ask the Chief Secretary to the Treasury where the money would come from. He has not told the House how much he expects his proposals to cost, both in the pilot phase, when adult credits will be paid to a quarter of a million people, and later when he hopes to extend the scheme across the country. If the purpose of that is to transform attitudes to training, what effect will the lead handcuff clause that he proposes for the training contract have on attitudes to training? Is he not still missing the real point if he really wants to do something radical to promote opportunities for people at work, and create rights for citizens at work to ownership and participation in decision-making at the place of work?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point. We have taken a considerable number of far-reaching measures in association with the Confederation of British Industry to encourage precisely that course.
As to the cost of the measures, the two-year cost of the skill check initiative will be some £25 million and the cost of the pilot scheme of vouchers to help unemployed people to make use of open learning facilities will be £3 million. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, those measures represent only part of our considerable range of initiatives. I do not suggest that these measures alone will revolutionise training in Britain, but, taken in conjunction with other measures that we have taken, the considerable progress made by the training and enterprise councils, together with Investors in People and our national record of achievement, we are certainly well on the way to completing a transformation of attitudes to training in Britain.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement. Does he accept that many employers, if not the overwhelming majority, support the Government's robust stance against the social clause? A leading textile and clothing employer told me last night that if we implemented the social clause it could cost thousands of jobs within his company.
My right hon. and learned Friend said that many of the new responsibilities that he announced would lie with the TECs. I have an excellent TEC, the South and East Cheshire TEC, which he knows well. Will he assure the House that the necessary funds to enable the TECs to undertake the additional responsibilities that he announced will be provided for those excellent bodies?

Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful for his support. It is extraordinary how oblivious the Labour party remains to the extraordinarily damaging consequences of its proposals. Those consequences have been highlighted by my hon. Friend with specific examples


from industries within his constituency. I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he asked on resources for TECs for the initiative. There will be a competition to decide which 15 TECs will have responsibility for the initiative, and I expect many bids.

Mr. Ron Leighton: The statement was extremely thin, but it touched on one matter of importance—the fact that some employers spend money on training but others do not: they poach. Instead of leaving that, as hitherto, to market forces, it appears that the Secretary of State wants to intervene; he wants to be dirigiste. Unfortunately, his approach is based on the same argument as that used by the people who built the Berlin wall—"If you leave the people who trained you, you have to pay a penalty".
That is the approach that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has taken, but there is another—that every employer should spend money on training. If they do, we can give freedom to our people. That is the argument for a levy on all employers. It is an argument not for training boards with a lot of bureaucracy, but for the present successful French policy where every employer has to spend money on training. In that way, we would increase national expenditure on training and the Secretary of State would not have to go in for these dictatorial measures.

Mr. Howard: I am afraid that the remarks of the hon. Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) and for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) about market forces only go to show how little they understand them. Market forces are based on contract, and the proposal that I advanced would clarify the law to make it possible for people to enter into contracts, which would have the consequences that I described.
As to a levy, I am surprised that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East, with his experience as Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment, is not aware of the experience of employers throughout the country who sought to operate the levy that we used to have, which was recognised on all sides as a failure. It led to employers spending time in filling up forms and trying to ensure that every conceivable expense was lumped together under the heading of training instead of concentrating on the training itself. There could be no clearer example of the Opposition's blind and blinkered approach to these matters than that proposal.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: As an employer, may I say that the greatest single obstacle to providing training is the possibility that someone else will take away one's trainee and thereby render one's investment worthless? May I suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend that the explanation for the ill-tempered ignorance with which his proposals have been greeted today is that Opposition Members are, for the most part, neither employers on the one hand, nor employable on the other?

Mr. Howard: There is considerable ground for speculation about why the Opposition have adopted such a churlish attitude to proposals which are clearly well designed and will make a significant contribution to further improvement in attitudes to training. I can only hope—I am always an optimist in these matters—that on further, more mature reflection they will yet change their mind.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Secretary of State aware that he has done painfully little to create ladders of opportunity for disabled people because only one in three have jobs? That is a shocking figure. Is he also aware that some of his colleagues have damaged their interests because they talked out a Bill designed to outlaw discrimination against disabled people? Why does not the Minister enforce the employment quota for disabled people? Why does he not impose a levy—not the levy that we were just speaking about, but one similar to the French or German levy—to bring jobs to disabled people? What further action can we have?

Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that enforcing the quota is simply not practicable since there are not sufficient numbers of registered disabled people to fill the quota. We have reviewed the quota, as we have reviewed the range of ways in which we help disabled people into work, and we have decided to keep the quota under review, but the right hon. Gentleman knows of the difficulties in enforcing it.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: To promote employment in this country, does the Secretary of State's White Paper include policies of 25 per cent. VAT, a 35 per cent. basic rate of income tax, 52 per cent. corporation tax, a 98 per cent. tax on savings or 20 per cent. inflation—or am I right in thinking that no sane Government would introduce such policies honestly in this country? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that that is exactly what was introduced and confirmed in the Budget in April 1975, one year into the last Labour Government?

Mr. Howard: I am extremely interested in my hon. Friend's recollections. It is particularly worthy of note that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer who would have responsibility for these matters if a Labour Government were elected, was a prominent member of the Government at that time.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: What will happen to nurses who have trained at the taxpayers' expense in the national health service but who, increasingly, find themselves unable to get a job after three years' training? What will happen to their pay packets when they end up working in the private sector, often for less money—because we know that the national health service is simply a Bill away from being privatised? Will the Minister tell the nurses honestly whether they will have to pay for their training?

Mr. Howard: There is no question of making nurses pay for their training in those circumstances. How the hon. Lady supposes that the lot of nurses would be improved by the policies of the Labour party is utterly beyond me. Whether nurses would come under the arrangements identified in the White Paper depends entirely on the contractual arrangements that they make with their employers.

Mr. Barry Field: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend keeps in close touch with the chairmen of the training and enterprise councils and that he is aware of the concern, particularly in the south of England, about the largesse that occasionally appears to be shown to the north. Will he confirm categorically that TECs will have equal access to the funds that he has made


available under the White Paper, excellent as it is? Will he ensure that constituencies such as mine and others on the south coast, where employment is a problem and retraining is high on the agenda, have equal access to Government funds without fear or favour and that they have parity with the north of England?

Mr. Howard: The Isle of Wight TEC will certainly have equal access to the competition. We want to encourage excellence in the implementaton of this initiative. There will be a competition, which is the best way forward to ensure that the plans are implemented in the most effective way.

Mr. Dick Douglas: What distinction does the Minister make between education and training? Many of the people who come under the first proposal would be paying back loans for educational purposes. Can the Secretary of State tell us how many people might be involved in this so-called transfer fee racket, which seems to be difficult to administer? Will he tell us about the relationship between his Department and Scottish Enterprise because, in the defence industry, we need a skills audit, which he could finance? Scottish Enterprise does not have the resources to proceed further with its study of the consequences of the fall in defence expenditure in Scotland.

Mr. Howard: I cannot give an estimate of the numbers involved. It will depend on how many choose to enter the type of contract that I have described.
On the distinction between education and training, we have done a great deal to bring together the best of education and of training. The hon. Gentleman may be interested in one significant and revealing statistic. In 1979–80, 46 per cent. of all 16-year-olds were in education or training. In 1989–90 that figure had gone up to 73 per cent. That shows the progress that we have made in the past 12 years in taking education and training forward.

Mr. David Nicholson: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals, particularly his skilful proposal which deals with poaching. They contrast not only with the bureaucratic levy grant system, which used to exist, but with the Labour party's taxation proposals. Is he aware that my constituents in the retail industry will take careful note of his response to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on the devastating effects that the minimum wage would have on that industry? Will he consult with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security about how the availability for work rule might impede people, particularly the adult unemployed, in obtaining useful training which might enable them to return to work?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support and for his important observations about the retail industry in his constituency. I know that he will lose no opportunity to make it clear to employers and workers in that industry how devastating the prospects for their jobs would be if the Labour party's proposals were put into effect. I do not think that the availability for work rule will impinge on any of the proposals that are identified in the White Paper, but I shall reflect on the point that my hon. Friend made.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Secretary of State please explain how the skills in such industries as glass making, silver filigree work, carpentry, marquetry and the rest will be perpetuated to the next generation if the very firms in which those skills are needed are going bust due to the policies of the Government?

Mr. Howard: An encouraging aspect of the recession is that, unlike previous recessions, training has not been the first thing to be cut. One survey after another, the latest being the CBI survey, shows that four out of five employers are proposing to maintain or increase their investment in training, despite the present difficulties that they undoubtedly face. So I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take some comfort, as I do, from the figures.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Select Committee on Employment recently had before it representatives of the Open University who talked about open learning for people losing their jobs? In view of the terrible reception that that got from Opposition Members—even though the Labour party introduced the Open University—may I ask him to say whether the Open University will be used as an adviser to the Department in setting up the excellent open learning policy? How many people does he believe will take advantage of that excellent way of ensuring that people are trained in skills, both when they are unemployed and when they are still in work?

Mr. Howard: I am always interested in the views of the Open University, which has undoubtedly played an important part in taking foward open learning, in which we lead the world. The success of Britain in taking open learning forward is one of our unsung achievements. Indeed, at exhibitions on open learning in almost any part of the world, about 50 per cent. of the stands are from Britain. It is difficult to estimate the numbers of people involved, but I think that it will represent a significant and useful way of increasing the range of options available to unemployed people who wish to reskill themselves.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: If employers fail to enhance the skills and training of the work force, what claim will the work force have against employers for such loss?

Mr. Howard: The thought behind the hon. Gentleman's question is valid. It is of the utmost importance that employers appreciate the significance of training. It is much more important that they do that than anything the Government can do. Employers in this country are investing about £20 billion a year in training. We want to increase that sum and to enhance the quality of the training that they provide. We have put in place a range of measures, including those I have described, to encourage them to do that.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that small firms in particular provide the kind of flexibility that is needed to make the new initiative a great success? Does he further agree that those small firms are a vital part of the rural economy? Will he ensure that the North Yorkshire training and enterprise council, which is an excellent body, is given every opportunity to enhance the rural economy through this imaginative initiative?

Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of small firms, and I look forward to receiving a bid from the North Yorkshire training and enterprise council to run one of our assessment initiative schemes.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: A jeweller named Ratner had a selling technique for getting rid of rubbish. Unfortunately, the same seems to be happening this afternoon, the Government taking a leaf out of his ideological book in offering absolutely nothing to people who are desperate for jobs and training.
In relation to the transfer levy, what will happen to the thousands of teachers who have been trained at the taxpayers' expense, some of whom teach not in the state sector but in the private sector? Will those teachers, under the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals, have to reimburse the taxpayers for that expensive training?

Mr. Howard: They will not have to do so as matters stand. Whether they will have to in future will depend on whether they are prepared to enter into contractual arrangements with the local education authorities.

Mr. Harry Ewing: May I take the Secretary of State back to the question on nurses asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon)? Does he accept that the national health service is different in the sense that it is owned, managed and run by the Government and a Secretary of State sets in place legislative proposals? Will he give an absolute guarantee that under no circumstances will he enforce the area health authorities in England or health boards in Scotland to introduce such contracts for the training of nurses?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman cannot seriously expect me to give such an undertaking. If necessary, those matters will be considered in the future.

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Hexagon Community Ltd. provides a quality training service through the Mersey training and enterprise council. Its funding has been cut and it appears that it has been offered a wind-down contract. In the light of the Secretary of State's comments, what message can I take back to the 35 staff and 205 trainees who will have no jobs or training?

Mr. Howard: I am not sure how that arises on the White Paper. The hon. Gentleman may not have been in the Chamber during Employment questions this afternoon, when the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), was asked about Hexagon and training. He said that he had received a letter from Hexagon and that he would reply to it shortly.

Mr. Greville Janner: The Minister has rightly said that employees should have more information about their terms of service. Does he propose to extend the requirements for written particulars of service under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978? If so, are people to be told precisely what they must repay if, having received training, they decide, for whatever reason, to move? It is no way to improve employees' willingness to undergo training if they are liable to be fined if they move on.

Mr. Howard: Employees' willingness to receive training is not the problem. Employees show a ready desire to take advantage of training opportunities. As to the precise way in which we legislate on the matter, the White Paper makes

it clear that we shall consult on that. I look forward to receiving representations from the hon. and learned Gentleman when we do so.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Secretary of State accept that his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) was complacent in the extreme? If the quotas are not working after 13 years, as the Secretary of State claims, what proposals do the Government have to deal with blatant discrimination against disabled people? Does he realise that, in talking out the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), the Government are years behind even President Bush? Will he accept that the word "opportunity" will sound hollow to millions of disabled people who are looking for jobs?

Mr. Howard: I do not accept that, because we have gone to considerable lengths to help disabled people into work in a number of ways and under a variety of schemes. In answering the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), I was facing up to the difficulties in terms of enforcing the quota. No one has come up with an obvious and attractive alternative to it. I know that the hon. Gentleman is devoted to the principle of legislation in that area, but I am far from convinced that legislation would have the effect that he genuinely desires.

Dr. Kim Howells: The Secretary of State has told the House that he is making provision for employers to claw back some financial recompense in respect of employees who leave before the minimum period has elapsed after their training. What about recompense for major and responsible employers, such as the Royal Mint in Llantrisant in my constituency, who find that firms poach trained people because they cannot afford to train people themselves due to the Government's mismanagement of the economy?

Mr. Howard: I must confess that I find the logic behind the hon. Gentleman's question extremely difficult to follow. Firms are increasingly recognising the importance of investment in training. They are investing in training to an ever-increasing extent. The number of policies that we have put in place is encouraging them to do precisely that.

Mr. Robert Litherland: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a deputation from GEC Switchgear, Openshaw, Manchester to prevent job losses? What choice or opportunity do those 169 sacked workers have? What opportunity or choice does Mr. Boyle have? He has worked there for 30 years and will get no chance of retraining at his age or financial remuneration of any kind. What does the White Paper mean to them? It is an insult.

Mr. Howard: I understand very well how difficult things will look to those who have recently lost their job, but about 50 per cent. of those who are unfortunate enough to lose their job leave unemployment within three months. The range of measures that we have in place to help unemployed people has helped many, including a 60-year-old I met the other day on Teesside, who had been unemployed for a considerable period and who was helped back into work by one of the schemes that we have recently introduced. There is a range of ways available to help people back to work. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage his constituents to make the most of them.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that I have not been able to accommodate the three hon. Members who are standing, but I shall certainly bear their claims in mind when we return to the subject on another occasion.

Electoral Reform

Mr. James Wallace: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reform the law on elections in the United Kingdom; to base the electoral system for such elections on proportional representation; and for connected purposes.
This is one of a series of Bills introduced by my hon. Friends and intended to address a fundamental British malaise. Britain is ill, and it is no wonder: it is because we have a bad constitution. My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has already proposed a Freedom of Information Bill in this Parliament. Last Friday, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) moved the Home Rule (Scotland) Bill. Tomorrow, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) will seek leave to bring in a Bill to establish in law a charter of human rights. Today I wish to address the issue of our bankrupt and outdated electoral system.
That list of reforming measures is not exhaustive. Those four measures are critical if we are to reform our political institutions for the modern age and if we are to establish open, near and fair government.
The Bill would reform elections at all levels. At the last European parliamentary elections, it was not so much my party as the Green party, which polled 15 per cent. of the vote with no reward in terms of seats, that was the victim of the distortions of our present electoral system. Those distortions are magnified by the constituency sizes at European parliamentary elections.
The other victim of that distorted electoral system is the European Parliament itself. Its balance and composition, as well as those of its committees, are skewed by the unrepresentative voting system operating in Great Britain. I deliberately exclude Northern Ireland, where a system of proportional representation has ensured representation of the Province's two traditions in the European forum.
The Bill would also apply to local government elections. That may commend itself to Conservative Members—or perhaps they feel that they can justify on good democratic grounds a result such as that in the London borough of Richmond upon Thames, where, in the last elections, a 46 per cent. vote for the Liberal Democrats awarded us with 92 per cent. of the council seats.
Apart from fairness, proportional representation in local government would lead to a far more acceptable or democractically legitimate and accountable restraint on the excessive spending notions of some more extreme council groups than is a centralist power to cap. To be fair, some hon. Members accept that, but the Government have never explained why they are so unwilling to allow the electors, rather than the Secretary of State, to exercise any restraint on erring councils which may be needed.
The Home Rule (Scotland) Bill, debated last Friday, incorporates a system of proportional representation. Indeed, after the experience of the Scotland Act 1978, my right hon. and hon. Friends would be loth to commend any Scottish Parliament without proportional representation. The change of heart by the Labour party on that issue is very much to be welcomed.
So we come to the Westminster Parliament. It is very tempting to dwell on the injustice which the present system


deals to my own party—that, at the last election, in return for 23 per cent. of the vote we got 23 seats. But the system throws up other damaging and divisive anomalies too.
Outside Greater London, the hon. Members for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) and for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) are the only Labour Members south of a line drawn from the Severn to the Wash. In spite of the Conservatives polling a cumulative total of 98,340 votes in the cities of Glasgow and Liverpool in 1987, there is not one Conservative Member for either of those great cities.
That kind of imbalance means that, on critical issues affecting those cities or the vast area of southern England, the Government on the one hand and the main Opposition party on the other cannot have the benefit of first-hand knowledge or input in parliamentary debate. That cannot be healthy for a pluralist democracy.
I claim that proportional representation would lead to greater fairness. That in itself is an important factor in any democracy, but experience abroad also suggests that it would lead to better representation of women and of those from our nation's ethnic communities. That could only make the House more representative of the nation as a whole.
Our preferred system of the single transferable vote in multi-member seats with a community identity would change, but nevertheless retain, the link between a Member and his or her constituents. After all, which Member would risk taking too much for granted if the penalty were to lose one's seat to a member of one's own party? That system, too, places more choice in the hands of voters and less in the hands of the constituency executive.
There are clear and encouraging signs that the case for proportional representation is gaining ground. The Labour party has taken some welcome steps in the right direction, but, with a few honourable and wise exceptions, it still balks at taking the final critical step of supporting fair votes for this Chamber.
There have always been some distinguished supporters of proportional representation on the Conservative Benches. Indeed, in 1983, before taking up office, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), writing as the author of a Penguin book, "The Tory Case", said:
Conservatives believe in defending our liberties and sustaining efficient government. Electoral reform, as Sir Winston Churchill accepted, provides the best way of doing both these things.
I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bath would do well to remind himself of his own words.
More important, however, the case for a fair voting system is gathering support among those who really count: the voters themselves, those who use the system. Any citizen's charter worth its salt would surely try to enhance the value of the citizen's most valuable possession—his or her vote. But, to no one's surprise, the Prime Minister shies away from that. He may well be able to do so on a Tuesday afternoon at the fag-end of a Parliament, but we shall not lose opportunities in the coming weeks and months to tell the electorate that every Liberal Democrat vote in the coming election will help to put the issue of electoral reform at centre stage on the agenda of the next Parliament.
There is a fundamental reason why it should be there at centre stage. I believe that a reformed electoral system and the reform of government which would inevitably accompany it would bring about the stability and

continuity which our country and our economy need. Britain's relative economic decline over the past 40 years is the product of a failed political system which brings uncertainty and breeds conflict.
To those who claim that first-past-the-post produces the certainty that flows from a large majority, I say take but one example. Where has the certainty been in local government finance over the past six or seven years? Those who claim that certainty confuse strong government with headstrong government. A reformed electoral system offers the prospect of genuinely strong government: government with the support of the majority of the people.

Mr. Robert Adley: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman seek to oppose?

Mr. Adley: I do.
The House will have listened with interest to the speech by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). It is right that he should have the chance to make such a speech, and I hope that he will allow me, I hope in a moderate and quiet way, to put an alternative view.
At the start of a speech it is normal to declare an interest, and I shall declare mine. At the last election, I received 65·9 per cent. of the votes that were cast in my constituency, as opposed to 41·7 per cent. cast for the hon. Gentleman in the constituency of Orkney and Shetland. It is a matter of statistical record that, at the last general election, the Liberal Alliance averaged only 44·9 per cent. of the vote in their constituencies. Only three of them managed to achieve more than 50 per cent. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) points. He was not in the House at that time, and shortly he will not be here again.
There is nothing to stop people electing a Liberal, a bush Baptist or whoever they wish. Under our existing system, they may vote for any of those on the ballot paper. People who argue about fairness really mean that some parties are inherently incapable of persuading enough people to vote for them. As far as I know, the Liberal party is the only United Kingdom party which to a man and woman favours eliminating the traditional voting system. The reason for that is clear, and I shall give it, I hope without giving offence: ever since the early years of this century, the Liberal party has been a perpetual loser and it is naturally enthusiastic about changing the rules, rather in the way that the supporters of Aldershot or Accrington Stanley football clubs would like to change the bankruptcy laws.
The usual proposition—we heard it from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland—is that, if the votes cast were distributed under proportional representation, X, Y and Z would follow. There is no logic on earth which says that, if we change the voting system, the votes will be cast in the same way. That reminds me of a phrase that my late father used to use—if my grandmother had wheels, she would be an omnibus. She had not, and she was not.
This is a serious issue. I am prepared to be persuaded about PR, but many of the arguments are simultaneously seductive and superficial. The proposition is that a system of proportional representation would eliminate extremism. Precisely the opposite is the case. What actually happens is that those who get the fewest votes have the most power. Anyone who looks at Eire and Israel, two


democracies in which tiny minorities hold the Government and people to ransom, will see that the PR argument is difficult to sustain. Mr. Shamir, as a product of proportional representation, is an example of nothing that I particularly want to follow.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland spoke about proportional representation in Northern Ireland, but he rather gave the game away by making the point that that has only entrenched the polarisation, so that each community has a representative. Instead of the emergence of an "alliance" candidate, who might represent neither of the entrenched parties, PR has merely entrenched the existing situation.
I told the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that I would mention him in my speech. I do not think that many hon. Members would relish the proposition that, in a so-called hung Parliament, the future size, shape and disposition of the Government would hang in the balance depending in whose favour the hon. Member for Antrim, North decided to bestow his good wishes. The Labour party, the Liberal party and the Conservative party are all, as I understand it, in favour of the Anglo-Irish Agreement; the hon. Member for Antrim, North and his hon. Friends are not.
Are we really to suggest that a hung Parliament, with somebody such as the hon. Member holding the balance of power, is likely to produce a situation which is acceptable to the majority? The way in which that particular person was elected is irrelevant. The proposition is that somebody holds the balance of power and so moderation is ensured. It is far more likely to ensure behind-the-scenes, Tammany hall-type deals which are not in the interest of the majority of people in a democratic society.
The constituency link is paramount. I do not want to see a system whereby party organisations have more power than the people who are elected to do the job. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned the poll tax, which I have opposed all the way through. It may be that my views on that and on the future of the railways, for example, colour my reason for not wanting the apparatchiks of the Conservative party determining what I do and do not do. I believe that we derive our strength from our election by our constituents, to give that clear, fine definition between constituency and Member of Parliament.
The rock of British democracy is the existing system. It is interesting to me that the Italians, who have long enjoyed, if that is the word, a system of proportional representation, are now seriously considering changing their system because of the constant changes of Government and the instability that many Italian politicians regard as an inherent defect of their system.
If I am wrong, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) will tell me, and I will apologise, but I understand that this morning at a press conference he said that he would vote down the Queen's Speech unless there was a commitment to proportional representation by the party with the most seats in the House. Let us consider that proposition. As far as I know—hon. Members on the Labour Front Bench will tell me; I ask them rather than tell them—neither the Labour party nor the Conservative party is going into the next election with a manifesto commitment to change the voting system to proportional

representation. We may well say in both our manifestos that we need to look at it, but there will be no commitment to change it.
So we have a situation where the leader of the Liberal party, with a minority of seats in a hung Parliament and holding the balance, is willing to use that minority position against the votes of the two main parties, neither of which will have offered that proposition to the people of this country. If the right hon. Member for Yeovil would stop and think about the proposal for one moment, he would see that he is not suggesting a fair debate and discussion in the House or among the political parties about the way in which we elect our Parliament: he is offering political blackmail—nothing more, nothing less.
I close my remarks, I hope in a conciliatory way, by saying that I am not opposed to an examination of the system by which we elect our Members of Parliament. What I am opposed to is the arrogant assumption that this country is suffering from what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland described as "a fundamental malaise". I do not believe—and I have tried to give examples—that there is any necessary correlation between good government and proportional representation or between first-past-the-post and bad government. It needs men and women of good will in politics to try to reach a consensus on individual issues, but to suggest that issuing threats, to be carried out unless those elected with a minority of the votes, in this place or elsewhere, get their own way, is some sort of fair and democratic system is not democratic as I understand the meaning of the word.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 27, Noes 151.

Division No. 76]
[4.33 pm


AYES


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Ashton, Joe
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Raffan, Keith


Beith, A. J.
Salmond, Alex


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Stephen, Nicol


Carr, Michael
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Douglas, Dick
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Edwards, Huw
Wallace, James


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Wigley, Dafydd


Faulds, Andrew
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Flynn, Paul



Godman, Dr Norman A.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Mr. Ronnie Fearn and


Kennedy, Charles
Mr. David Bellotti.


Livingstone, Ken





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Alexander, Richard
Buck, Sir Antony


Allen, Graham
Budgen, Nicholas


Amos, Alan
Burns, Simon


Arbuthnot, James
Butler, Chris


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Callaghan, Jim


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cash, William


Barron, Kevin
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Batiste, Spencer
Cohen, Harry


Beggs, Roy
Conway, Derek


Bell, Stuart
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cormack, Patrick


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Cryer, Bob


Blunkett, David
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bottomley, Peter
Dalyell, Tam


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Day, Stephen


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Dickens, Geoffrey






Dixon, Don
Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin


Dunn, Bob
Michael, Alun


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Eadie, Alexander
Moate, Roger


Eastham, Ken
Morgan, Rhodri


Evennett, David
Mudd, David


Farr, Sir John
Murphy, Paul


Foster, Derek
Neubert, Sir Michael


Fox, Sir Marcus
Nicholls, Patrick


French, Douglas
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gardiner, Sir George
Norris, Steve


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Gill, Christopher
O'Brien, William


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
O'Hara, Edward


Golding, Mrs Llin
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Patchett, Terry


Gordon, Mildred
Pawsey, James


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Powell, William (Corby)


Grist, Ian
Price, Sir David


Hardy, Peter
Redmond, Martin


Harris, David
Riddick, Graham


Hayes, Jerry
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Haynes, Frank
Rooney, Terence


Hayward, Robert
Rost, Peter


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hind, Kenneth
Shersby, Michael


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Sims, Roger


Hoyle, Doug
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Hunter, Andrew
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Illsley, Eric
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Irvine, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Janner, Greville
Steen, Anthony


Jessel, Toby
Steinberg, Gerry


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Stott, Roger


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Straw, Jack


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Summerson, Hugo


Kilfedder, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Thornton, Malcolm


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Tracey, Richard


Lewis, Terry
Trimble, David


Litherland, Robert
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Waller, Gary


Lord, Michael
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Loyden, Eddie
Wheeler, Sir John


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Wilkinson, John


McAvoy, Thomas
Wilshire, David


McFall, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)



McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Madden, Max
Mr. Dennis Turner and


Mans, Keith
Mr. Conal Gregory.


Marland, Paul

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Further and Higher Education Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, That the Bill he now read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that a large number of hon. Members wish to participate in this debate, I propose to put a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 o'clock and 9 o'clock. It may be possible to relax the limit if hon. Members who speak before 7 o'clock do so briefly.

Mr. Clarke: The Bill is aimed at the expansion of opportunities for education and training after the years of compulsory school attendance. Until recent years, the area of education and training post-16 has been a comparatively neglected part of the political agenda for education, but nowadays the Government are giving it very high priority. We are making such rapid advances that we need this legislation if we are to expand the opportunities significantly, not only for our young people but for adults. Certainly, the generation of young people at present emerging from our schools will need to be better educated and better trained than any previous generation if they are to face up to the demands of modern life. Not only must they expect to be better educated and better trained to cope with the more competitive world than were former generations but throughout their adult lives they will be members of a society in which people accept the need to continue to be trained and educated throughout life.
It is obvious that if people are to face up to this new situation they will have to have access to a wider range of courses and of qualifications than the British system has hitherto usually provided. As we develop that wider range of courses and qualifications we shall need to end some of the stranger traditions of British life. In particular, we shall certainly have to bring to an end snobbish distinctions between academic pursuits and vocational pursuits. We must acknowledge that the area of education and training that has relevance to the world of business and commerce or to a particular vocational pursuit can, if pursued to the same standard as an outstanding and traditional academic career, be awarded the same esteem.
For this new situation we need a much more diverse range of institutions, colleges and universities than we have had hitherto to provide the range of courses that I am describing. In future, when we look at either higher education or further education we shall see a much greater variety of institutions, all providing courses of the same standard, but perhaps in very different climates and with very different styles. We shall certainly still have universities of the "dreaming spires" type, with, I hope, the traditional excellent standards. There will be other universities—equally worthwhile institutions—concentrating on science and technology, whose courses may be rooted in the economic life of their regions, in which they will play a very significant role.


In some of our cities there will be giant tertiary colleges for 16 to 19-year-olds. There will also be smaller further education colleges as well as sixth form colleges—some still concentrating, perhaps, on predominantly academic courses rather than on the new vocational qualifications, but some offering the full range—and in rural areas there will be community colleges as well. Thus we shall have much greater participation in higher education and further education, a much wider range of courses and qualifications and a much wider diversity of institutions emerging to serve the needs of society in the 1990s and beyond.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Secretary of State explain what will happen to the traditional sixth forms? How will they fit into the new framework?

Mr. Clarke: The traditional sixth forms will play a valuable part in those schools that have them or acquire them. They will also be a part of the range of institutions from which a person at the age of 16 can choose, with the advice of parents and friends, when deciding what course suits his or her temperament. I expect sixth forms to thrive and to add to the diversity of provision that I have just described.
Of course, we have been moving rapidly in that direction in recent years. We all need to come to terms with the pace of events and with the demands of the next decade or two. I frequently speak of our need to prepare for mass higher education for future generations. We must prepare also for near universal further education, with, I hope, more than 90 per cent. of our young people staying on in the very near future for proper education and training. In addition, as I said, we must make an approach towards a lifetime career that anticipates the need for continuous education and upgrading of training throughout a working life. The Bill will give form to those objectives and help us to expand and develop the right sorts of institutions to meet our needs.
The great challenge of the 1990s in doing all that and in moving into mass participation in higher and further education is that we must move in that direction without lowering academic and professional standards. Wider access must not mean that we lower the standard that is set for our qualifications so that it is easier for everybody to obtain them without having to improve the preparation for them.
More must not mean worse. That is familiar to many of us who remember the argument about the university expansion that was proposed by Lord Robbins and was first planned many years ago. I recall that at first I was sceptical about it. History has shown, however, that expansion—certainly on what now seems the modest scale then anticipated—did not threaten or damage academic standards. We must ensure that the same applies as we expand our universities, what were our polytechnics, our further education colleges and our sixth forms. We must add to the range of courses and the diversity of provision but ensure that standards are not lowered. For example, in my opinion, greater participation in post-16 education should not mean the abolition of A-levels on the basis that not everybody can pass A-levels. Instead it should mean a wider range of choice after 16.
Our degree standard must not be lowered. An honours degree in this country is one of the best regarded academic qualifications in the developed world. Equal status will be given to vocational and academic qualifications, but only where the vocational courses are as demanding and as worthy of esteem as good-quality academic qualifications.

Sir John Farr: I am anxious to support my right hon. and learned Friend and I am listening to his every word. Will he tell me how I can persuade my constituents, who already have an adult basic education service and a further education service that are as high as, if not higher than, anything that is set out in the Bill, that they should support change that can be only for the worse if there is not some major alteration to the Bill?

Mr. Clarke: At an appropriate stage I shall turn to that issue in some detail. I am anxious to assure my hon. Friend and other of my hon. Friends from Leicestershire, where the community college system is operated—it is operated also in Cambridgeshire and Devon—that the Bill poses no threat to the quality of provision or, necessarily, to its pattern. At present, I am setting the scene for the Bill. I am saying that quality of provision matters just as much as expansion. I am underlining the point that the quality assurance provisions in the Bill, as they apply to both further education and higher education, are just as important as those parts of the Bill that set up the new funding structure and give autonomy to more of the colleges.
I have addressed the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) because it has been put to me frequently as the Bill has proceeded, especially by my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the three counties which I named. I shall turn in a short while to what I describe as the Maxwell-Hyslop clause. I do so because it was pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Sir R. Maxwell-Hyslop) and others. I do not believe that the fears expressed by my hon. Friend and others in Devon that the Bill represents a threat to the pattern of provision in rural areas for adult education are justified. We have sought to amend the Bill to meet those fears. I think that it will be more suitable to return to the matter a little later in my speech.
As I said, I am setting the scene for the Bill. I shall delay turning to particular matters so that we do not suddenly go off at a tangent to deal with important but particular points. I think that everything that I have said so far makes it clear that the objective of the Bill is to expand the provision of further and higher education and to expand opportunities for adults, as well as for young people, to engage in all sorts of courses. It is not true that the Bill cuts a line between vocational and leisure courses, any more than it does between the academic and the vocational. It draws no line of a sort that will damage provision. It is—[Interruption.] Certainly not. The Labour party is taken up with the campaign about adult education generally. I hope to be able in a few moments to reassure my hon. Friends on the community college argument.
Before moving to the particular—

Mr. Dennis Turner: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Toby Jessel: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Clarke: That is the particular in Wolverhampton and even in Richmond. I wish first to deal with the Bill as a whole. I know that particular examples have been raised.
I have described the need for us to legislate to cope with the rapidly changing nature of higher education and further education needs. The specifics that are set out in the Bill—this is so that we can look at the wood before we turn to extremely important trees in particular places—deal first with further education. I hope that even the trees in Wolverhampton will be able to wait for a few minutes.
The main policy set out in the Bill is to give further education colleges, and sixth form colleges in particular, independence from local government. It is designed to give autonomy to the colleges so that they take upon themselves full responsibility for the delivery of courses and the provision of an adequate service to their locality, and to make them accountable more directly to the community that they serve. We propose to move to a funding council system and away from local authority control. That system is based exactly on the experience of the polytechnics over the past few years. At the beginning of this Parliament, shortly after the last general election, the Government carried through a Bill, in the teeth of quite a lot of opposition, that had the effect of taking polytechnics out of local authority control. They have thrived ever since. They have expanded rapidly and their academic independence has not been remotely compromised. On the contrary, they have become powerful academic institutions, making an important contribution to higher education. We are following that precedent in higher education.
When talking in the jargon of the Government's policy, we sometimes refer to creating a new sector of autonomous further education colleges. I hope that within that sector there will be room for considerable diversity. I do not believe that every sixth form college should become like every further education or tertiary college. The co-existence of sixth form colleges in schools, of sixth form colleges previously under schools' regulations and of further education colleges—this is where there is variety, and it is to be found in many areas— means that each student can make a choice on the basis of what suits his or her temperament or aptitude, and what climate, as it were, is likely to be conducive to his or her study.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I accept my right hon. and learned Friend's argument that the Bill is splendid for colleges of further education, which are delighted to have their independence. However, the college of adult education in my constituency is worried lest it has to apply for funds through the college of further education. It may find that that college is unwilling to put its request to the funding council. The adult education college is worried also lest the college of further education should decide to introduce courses that it already makes available, such as literacy courses and English-as-a-second-language courses for the ethnic minorities. It is worried that the college of further education will not put forward its requests.

Mr. Clarke: The argument about access to funding council funds by adult colleges, community colleges and other colleges that do not automatically transfer into the new sector and are funded by the further education funding council is the same as that which has been advanced by hon. Members representing constituencies in

Leicestershire, Cambridgeshire and Devon. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman)—

Mr. Jessel: rose—

Mr. Clarke: —and others—I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jesse) is trying again to intervene, and I shall give way to him shortly. As I said, the same argument is being raised, but it does not fit into my speech at this point. We shall be discussing a guillotine motion later, and I am always accused of making the longest speech. That is because of my customary generosity in giving way to hon. Members on both sides of the House who wish to intervene. I shall give way to all those who ask me to do so, but I should at least be allowed to give way at a logical place in my speech. I have said that I know exactly what they are talking about, and it has nothing to do with what I am talking about now. If they will contain themselves in patience, I shall take up the point in some detail.
I was talking about further education and sixth form colleges having independence from local government, and my hope that there would be some diversity of provision on the part of the autonomous colleges.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Clarke: I will give way if the intervention concerns the point that I just mentioned.

Mr. Flannery: It concerns that point, but, if it had not, I would have moved it on to that point.
The Secretary of State is famous throughout the education community for having launched an all-out and sustained attack on local education authorities, to the point of leaving them very little to do and taking practically everything away. Does he agree that a Government who have attacked local education authorities as the present Government have done—and attacked teachers as they have done, notwithstanding yesterday's bribe—may just possibly be foisting on us something that is in line with their general attack on state education?

Mr. Clarke: Let me say en passant that I have never attacked teachers. The hon. Gentleman's reference to yesterday's pay settlement as a bribe shows that even he cannot see it as a subtle attack on them.
The main point of the Bill's provision for further education and sixth form colleges is to give them independence from local government. The purpose is not to attack local government gratuitously but to enhance the colleges' ability to thrive, expand and broaden their provision. In my opinion, local authority control is not the best way in which to bring that about. The same arguments were used in regard to polytechnics, but their history shows that they positively thrived once they were taken away from local authority control.
I see that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is becoming distressed at this point. Labour has approached the Bill with an automatic attachment to local government control of everything. Labour Members are so firmly tied hand and foot to Labour councillors up and down the country that they cannot concede that further education and sixth form colleges might do better to take the next logical step, from local management to total autonomy—being allowed to run their own affairs.


The colleges do not regard our proposals as an attack. The hon. Member for Blackburn, who follows these matters, may well have seen a poll of principals that was conducted by what was The Times Higher Educational Supplement—it is now called "The Higher". I do not always rely on polls, but this poll showed that two thirds of principals agreed with the policy of granting independence—

Mr. Flannery: Of course they do—you bribed them.

Mr. Clarke: Of course they do, because in their opinion it is in the interests of the colleges, and of their ability to secure the best possible provision of local services. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Blackburn is now trying to join in.
Labour's policy is becoming a most curious hybrid. I understand that Labour Members have been a bit worried about being currently opposed to the colleges doing nothing but remaining under local government control; they therefore offered them corporate status. That is a frightfully important step, because colleges can have the corporate status while remaining under local authority control when it comes to such matters as planning and money. It is not surprising that, according to "The Higher", that rather curious hybrid policy received the support of more than 20 per cent. of principals. That 20 per cent. consists of the nervous ones. They need only talk to the director of a polytechnic, or a polytechnic lecturer, to find that no one in the polytechnic world wants to return to local authority control—not even some staunch supporters of the Labour party.

Mr. Jack Straw: If the Secretary of State is so confident of public support for the proposal to take centalised control of further education away from local communities, why has he refused to publish responses to the Bill, not from individuals but from institutions and governing bodies? Why has he departed from the practice accepted by his predecessor, who published responses to the Education Reform Bill 1988 and made them available to hon. Members? Is not the truth that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has refused to publish the responses to this Bill because, overwhelmingly, they show opposition to its proposals?

Mr. Clarke: First, to describe the aim of the proposals as "centralised control" is utterly daft. The polytechnics are not under centralised control; quite the reverse. They were taken away from local authority control and given their autonomy—given complete academic independence. That point was mentioned in the other place, and I shall return to it later.
A funding council distributes money at arm's length from Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Government dictate."] They certainly do not dictate. It was made clear in another place that there was no prospect of any Secretary of State seeking to dictate to the funding council. The funding council is very much at arm's length. The idea that any polytechnic principal feels that he is being dictated to by the Government, and that he is under centralised control, is frankly ridiculous. Labour Members know that, and they should not make a belated attempt to stir principals into resistance by claiming otherwise.

Mr. Turner: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Clarke: As Wolverhampton seems to be relevant to every point, I will.

Mr. Turner: The Secretary of State has just made an important point about the attitude of the principals. Is it any wonder that they should feel cynical and concerned about the Secretary of State's attitude? Their cynicism and concern should not be underestimated.
In the next financial year, which will usher in all these marvellous developments, the college principals face massive reductions in their budgets. Those reductions mean that they cannot respond to the needs of their colleges, even in the next 12 months. How can the Secretary of State expect them to believe what he is saying? A college in my constituency faces a cut of half a million pounds in the next financial year. Why does not the Secretary of State show good faith, and give colleges the resources that they need?

Mr. Clarke: If the college in Wolverhampton is taking a cut in its budget, it is taking that cut from a borough council whose education budget the Government have increased in real terms. I have no doubt that cuts imposed on that college will make the principals even more eager to escape from the vagaries of local government control, and to put to the funding councils their case for money with which to maintain and expand their services.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend would like to examine the way in which Lancashire county council is funding Skelmersdale college. It is providing the college with only 85 per cent. of the amount that the Department has calculated to be necessary. The college looks forward to receiving an additional 15 per cent., and to expanding the facilities that it offers students, following the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I anticipate that the Bill may provoke a flood of complaints from further education colleges about their local education authorities—just as, five years ago, there could have been a flood of complaints from polytechnic directors about their authorities. In the Bill, we are moving towards independence.
Mention of the polytechnics takes me on to the subject of higher education. I hesitate to say this, but I think that this part of the Bill may be less controversial. It abolishes the distinction between polytechnics and universities, which I am satisfied has become entirely outdated. In any other country in the developed world, the institutions that we call polytechnics would be described as universities. In both north America and Western Europe they would take their place alongside many other distinguished higher education institutions.
The division between the two may or may not have been necessary when the polytechnics were first set up, but it now seems to hark back to distinctions between academic institutions and those tied more closely to industry and commerce that we do not wish to perpetuate. The academic standards in our polytechnics are certainly worthy of any university, and it is simply not true to say that they are in any way inferior institutions. We need to introduce a funding mechanism that will be common to both types of institution, and to encourage cost-effective expansion where it is most needed. We need to give access to funds for teaching and research on equal terms to the


institutions hitherto described as universities and polytechnics, and we need to accept that the rich diversity in our higher education provision will be best recognised—both abroad and by students here—if we call all such institutions universities.
The biggest practical effect of our retaining the title "polytechnic" for so long has been, to a certain extent, a marketing effect, but a very important one. That has tended to discourage students from applying to polytechnics because they wrongly perceive that a polytechnic place is not quite as good as a university place. However, they might have been applying to a polytechnic department with a much superior academic reputation to that of a similar department in a university. Polytechnics have encountered serious difficulties with their international relations. Because nobody understands our "polytechnic" designation, the polytechnics have had to explain what it means.
As I said in my preliminary remarks, the right way to regard the higher education world is to stop making that distinction between universities and polytechnics, and to allow each of them the same access to funds and the ability to compete equally for funds for teaching and research on the basis of quality. I hope that those provisions receive widespread support.

Dr. Keith Hampson: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I give way to my hon. Friend. For as long as I have been a Member, he has followed higher education matters. He urged his case strongly upon me in a conversation that we had within two days of my taking office.

Dr. Hampson: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that tribute and thank him for what he is doing in the Bill. However, does he recognise the phenomenal growth in both the polytechnics and the universities—but especially in the polytechnics—during the past three or four years? As he recognised the other day the hard work and extra effort of school teachers, will he also recognise the huge pressure on higher education staff? If he is concerned about equality of treatment, will he reconsider the position of university staff, including the new university staff, and establish a pay review body for them along the lines of that which he has already sensibly granted to school teachers?

Mr. Clarke: I pay tribute to everything that has been achieved in the polytechnics in recent years and to the contribution by the staff to their cost-effective expansion and their reduction in unit costs. However, as my hon. Friend knows, I shall not go on from that to say that we should have a review body for polytechnic or university lecturers. Review body status is given to particular groups or professions in the public service. As it is not strictly relevant to the Bill, I shall give only one reason for not extending review body status to higher education. Higher education institutions do not receive all their funds from the Government, so to continue to move the review body boundaries forward would be to give review body status to groups of employees who are not paid solely out of public funds. A high proportion of higher education institutions' funds come from outside. Therefore, although I pay tribute to higher education staff, I do not couple that with granting review body status, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) wishes.
I hope that ending the distinction between universities and polytechnics will not end the diversity of provision. We do not want to see an end to the distinctive mission of those universities that concentrate on, say, applied research rather than on basic research, and that have extremely close links with industry and many part-time as well as full-time students. Such institutions may also have a higher proportion of mature students and may have developed a wide range of courses. I hope that ending the distinction will mean that the whole of our higher education system will give proper regard to applied research, not just to basic research. I hope that the whole may be stimulated to develop closer links with industry and that different institutions will retain their individual ethos and, to use the Americanism, their "mission" in continuing to make their contribution to the system.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Surely the Secretary of State is not confusing parity of esteem with name changes. Is not his description of what happens in north America and western Europe a travesty of the truth? In those countries, universities-in-all-but-name proudly defend their right not to have the word "university" in their title precisely because they have parity of esteem although they may be called institutes of technology, or Technische Hochschulen in Germany. Those institutions have what might be called "equal snob value" with universities and they would shoot someone rather than be forced to change their title to "university". Is not one of the things wrong with this country in general the fact that, for marketing reasons, an institution can decide that it would be better to be called a university rather than an institute of technology or a polytechnic? That does not happen in other countries, such as Germany or the United States of America.
The Secretary of State went on to say that such institutions could nevertheless continue their distinctive mission of providing applied science as opposed to pure academic research and science, but he must know that that is precisely what does not happen. Once an institute of technology has been allowed to change itself into a university, it tries to cover exactly the same ground as a university and moves from the applied to the pure and theoretical because that is what this country, unfortunately, with its traditions of snob values, does extremely well, but that has nothing to do with earning our living in the world outside.

Mr. Clarke: I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's first point and agree that nobody could persuade the Massachusetts institute of technology to change its name to "university". Indeed, MIT probably regards itself as having a higher status than Boston university over the way—MIT is a particularly internationally famous higher education institution—

Mr. Morgan: What about French and German polytechnics?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that French polytechnics enjoy particularly high esteem.
The points that I have made about marketing were put to me by polytechnic directors. To a certain extent, they reflect what is wrong. As I said at the start of my speech, that is something from which we must move away.
However, we are not talking only about a change of title, although that change of title will help to overcome the


inert prejudices of parts of British society, albeit by conceding to them. We are also getting rid of the distinct funding arrangements. We are opening up access to research funds on an equal basis to all universities or polytechnics—whatever they call themselves—as long as they get recognition of their status. We are not forcing them to change title, but most will feel attracted to doing so. We are talking about more than a symbolic change—we are talking about amalgamating them.
However, I do not agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) that it is likely that the polytechnics will instantly try to imitate the more traditional universities— although that was true many years ago when the colleges of advanced technology became universities. I acknowledge that that happened in some cases, but the climate of opinion has now changed. Not only have the directors of the polytechnics assured me that they have no intention of doing any such thing, but they have done so in a wholly credible fashion. The polytechnic sector is now the most successful in terms of expansion. It has been forceful and self-confident in the past few years.
If the hon. Member for Cardiff, West is still concerned, I advise him that we shall expect the funding council to have regard to different institutions' distinctive missions when allocating funds. The funding council is perfectly entitled to take the view that it does not want an institution pointlessly to try to change its mission. We do not want everything to be set in aspic. However, I do not believe that in 1992 the risks are as the hon. Gentleman described them.
The Bill also deals—

Mr. Jessel: rose—

Hon. Members: Ah.

Mr. Clarke: I am nearing the point at which I shall invite my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham to intervene because, having dealt with further and higher education, I am about to turn to adult education—

Mr. Jessel: rose—

Mr. Clarke: Before I give way, the first point that I wish to make about adult education is that the Bill makes no change whatsoever to the long-existing policy that has been adopted towards all types of adult education in this country. It represents no threat to the pattern of expansion in adult education that we have seen in the past 10 years. Vigorous campaigns have been run recently, not only by the local authority associations—as one might expect—but in association with the Women's Institute and the Workers Educational Association—which I found more surprising—suggesting that the reforms posed a threat and would change adult non-vocational education. That is not true—

Mr. Harry Greenway: rose—

Mr. Jessel: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I shall give way first, but in a moment, to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond.
A local education authority's duty will encompass all types of further education outside the scope of the duty of the further education funding council. That means that

there will be no diminution of the statutory duty to provide any kind of further education, including adult education. It is true that certain types of adult education will remain within the remit of the local education authorities. The LEAs will continue to receive public funds to enable them to carry out their continuing duty to provide those less formal adult courses. The funds that they have always received will continue to be made available. We are carrying out a survey of local authority spending in the year 1989–90 as the basis for deciding the division of funds between the funding council and the LEAs in the future.
The pattern of adult education will continue as before, As now, it will be for local authorities to decide to what extent they will subsidise the fees or provide a range of courses. That remains a local authority problem. Their source of funding will not change. Their funding position will not change. Their legal powers will not change. The argument that courses will end or fees will rise as a direct result of the reforms in the Bill is totally fallacious.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Clarke: The level of fees and provision of courses will depend on local authority provision. Of course, some adult colleges and other colleges want to know where they will fit in in all this.

Mr. Jessel: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham, to whom I have mistakenly referred as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond—I apologise—wishes to intervene on that point.

Mr. Jessel: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this morning my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) and I saw the Minister of State about Richmond upon Thames adult college? We put to him our united view that the excellent range of courses attended by 25,000 people at that college must be securely protected and upheld. Will either my right hon. and learned Friend or my hon. Friend the Minister of State in his reply spell out exactly how that is to be done?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friends the Members for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) and for Twickenham have been pursuing all Ministers about that matter for a considerable time. I was delighted to hear that my hon. Friend the Minister of State had a meeting with them and covered the necessary ground—the basis on which Richmond college might, first, decide whether it wishes to seek designation under clause 16 to come within the remit of the further education funding council or, secondly, have a look at clause 6 under which it might obtain funds indirectly from the funding council. The position of the college in Richmond is best left to my hon. Friend in his reply as he spent a considerable time this morning—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Well, the colleges are all rather different. I will happily deal with the college—I expect to do so—in other contexts.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Clarke: On Richmond?

Mr. Fatchett: Yes.

Mr. Clarke: Really? The hon. Gentleman is looking for a new constituency. I did not realise it. On Richmond, I will give way.

Mr. Fatchett: I did not realise that the Secretary of State was so concerned about my future. I will stay with Leeds, Central for the moment. Perhaps the Secretary of State will be in a position to give some more information to his hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). A letter which has been drawn to my attention from the Minister of State to the hon. Member for Twickenham, dated 22 January, says:
I have to say that Ministers are not sure whether it"—that is the college—
will be best placed within the new independent further education sector or in the continuing LEA sector.
It seems that a month later Ministers still have no reassurance for the people of Richmond and its college, which is attended by 25,000 people. The Secretary of State can provide further information. The letter goes on to say:
One should remember that the Councils will ordinarily fund colleges only for provision that falls within their own remit"—
that is the remit of the further education funding council.
Earlier the Secretary of State tried to suggest to some of his other hon. Friends that the further education funding council would be able to cover non-vocational adult education. Will he also look at schedule 2—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. This is taking unfair advantage of an intervention. Will the hon. Gentleman make his point to the Secretary of State so that he may respond?

Mr. Fatchett: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I simply wish to say that under schedule 2 to the Secretary of State's Bill, to which he did not refer earlier, the courses provided by Richmond would not be funded directly by the further education funding council; so he needs to tell his hon. Friends what will be the position of Richmond college. It is an extremely popular college and it is clear that the Minister of State has no idea what will happen to it.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has not followed the point or caught up with the Minister of State's letter, which is in no way inconsistent with what I have just said. The position is—

Mr. Fatchett: What about Richmond?

Mr. Clarke: This is relevant to Richmond, to the college in Lancaster which troubles my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and to the community colleges in Leicestershire, Cambridgeshire and Devon. I name Those three counties but they are not the only examples of colleges that offer their type of provision. However, as far as I am aware, they are the only ones with widespread provision of that type in rural areas.
The first question is whether the college comes within that category of colleges that will transfer to the further education funding council. When I replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham a moment ago, I referred to clause 16 which determines whether further education institutions which do not automatically qualify should be incorporated. [Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) waving the letter about. He has not understood it. The fact is that in

the first instance the college must decide whether it wishes to be incorporated. It is no good descending from Leeds into Richmond and getting the provisions of the Bill and various letters around the hon. Gentleman's neck.
As Richmond college will not be automatically incorporated, the first step is for it to decide whether it wishes to seek incorporation under clause 16. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has touched on that matter in conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham and, as the letter is his, he should be left to reply to the point later, if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The first step is for the college to form a view about whether it is in its interest to become incorporated under clause 16. If it is not incorporated, the next step is to look for access to funding council funds under clause 6. In clause 6(5) provision is made for an institution that is under the control of not the funding council but the local authority to seek funding council money for courses provided within the terms of schedule 2. As the hon. Member for Leeds, Central correctly said, schedule 2 sets out the range of courses for which the funding council is responsible.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Harry Greenway: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I will not give way. I must deal with this point.
Clause 6(5) is the one to which I have already referred as the Maxwell-Hyslop clause because the Devonians have made representations for some time on the matter. The clause sets out the procedure whereby, in the case of Devon, the community college would make a request to its further education college for funding for its pattern of provision.

Mr. Turner: It is a nightmare.

Mr. Clarke: It is not a nightmare. It is perfectly straightforward to everyone except those who have dreams of putting everything back into local authority control by producing typical barrack-room lawyer points. The college will apply to the further education funding council under clause 6(5) and I anticipate that in all such cases the council will act as a conduit for the moneys for provision in rural areas of the counties, as is provided at present.
If, for some reason, the further education college did not meet the application, the provision would not be adequate, as clause 6 stipulates that it must be. The community college—to take that example—would then go directly to the funding council under clause 3(2) and ask it to consider the college's application direct to make sure that the council could discharge its duty. If the funding council failed to do so, eventually the college could come to me. However, I do not believe that that is remotely likely.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I will spell it out to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central, who is sitting there muddling his way through the Bill, so that he may have the opportunity of sorting it out by later tonight. All that the schedule means is that if a college decides not to become incorporated under clause 16 it must find some other route to seek funds. It will go first to the FE college. If, for some unexpected reason, the FE college will not arrange for the


money to be transmitted, the college will go direct to the funding council and complain on the basis that the service is inadequate.

Mr. Fatchett: It is so complicated.

Mr. Clarke: It is not complicated. If the Opposition are deliberately misreading rather than accidentally misunderstanding, their motives are merely to suggest that local authority bureaucracy is preferable and would make the best provision in Leeds, Wolverhampton, Grimsby and elsewhere.

Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State has clearly come up with a simple system which he had no difficulty explaining to us. He put forward two hypotheses. One is that the FE college turns down the proposal. The other is that the proposal is made to the further education funding council. The FEFC could also turn down the proposal. The Secretary of State needs to tell the House and his hon. Friends that under clause 10—[Interruption.] I will pass the Bill across to the Secretary of State if he wants—the local authority could be asked to meet the funding. However, it must be stated clearly that the local authority is under no duty to provide the resources. Will the Secretary of State confirm that I am right about that?

Mr. Clarke: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. Every time that I try to explain, he puts up a barrage of barracking in the hope that he can make the Bill appear more complicated than it is. He is getting there slowly.
First, the community college applies to the further education colleges. In the vast majority of cases, further education colleges will arrange for funds in a straightforward way. It is fanciful that suddenly people will decide to upset long-standing and successful arrangements in such places as Leicestershire and Devon.
If a further education college, for some expansionist reasons of its own, should refuse —should there be a malevolent further education college—the community college could tell the further education funding council that the system was not working properly and that adequate provision was not being made. The first situation to be faced is that the funding council is entitled to say no. There is no automatic right to public funds, even from Wolverhampton council under the present arrangements, let alone from anywhere else. However, access to the funding council—which supposedly troubles everyone—is indeed secured under clause 3(2) of the Bill. It is true that the local authority may have the power to provide, but it will not have the specific funds to do so.
If everyone is behaving perversely, which is extremely unlikely, the college may approach the Secretary of State under clause 57(3), who may issue a direction. Their lordships did not strip me of powers of direction for further education colleges; so, in suitable circumstances, I can do that. This is piling up complications. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central fondly imagines that—

Mr. Straw: It is complicated.

Mr. Clarke: It is not. It is a straightforward Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, it is perfectly straightforward. The Opposition began by not reading the Bill properly and they clearly misunderstood the letters. I take their reaction

as a spirited but unsuccessful attempt to sustain local authority power over all further education, because they appear incapable of understanding the Bill.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Clarke: We have dealt with that point. No doubt we shall return to it, but I shall not return to it straightaway.

Mr. Harry Greenway: rose—

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way. I am in serious danger of taking too long. By the time that we get to the guillotine motion, that will be the source of indignant complaint.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madame Deputy Speaker: Order. Do I understand that the Secretary of State is not giving way?

Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way for some time, neither to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) nor to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell).
Despite constant attempts to seek clarification on points of policy, I have succeeded in covering the policy on higher and further education and dealing, first, with the nonsense campaigns on adult education and, secondly, with serious matters raised by my hon. Friends—[Interruption.] The nonsense campaign was the campaign by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. I have also tried to deal with the serious issues mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham and for Tiverton and elsewhere who have been given a serious reply and an amendment to the Bill to meet their point.

Sir John Farr: rose—

Mr. Clarke: In discussing underlying policy we need—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way.

Madame Deputy Speaker: Order, I heard the Secretary of State say that he would not give way. Someone as thick-skinned as I am understands that the Secretary of State is not giving way. He means what he says.

Mr. Clarke: I have given way a number of times. I know that I am noted for my accommodating ways and my propensity to listen, but I think that we should press on with the Bill.
The background to the policy which I have outlined of expanding higher and further education and making no policy changes for adult education—indeed, we are paving the way for further expansions there—is that participation has already increased dramatically. We should remember the background of successful policies during the past 10 years because that explains why we require this legislation to accommodate the change. For example, in further education, 75 per cent. of 16-year-olds participated in full-time education or youth training schemes in 1989–90, compared with 46 per cent. when we came into office in 1979–80. In 1989–90, 58 per cent. of 17-year-olds participated in full-time education or youth training schemes, compared with 29 per cent. in 1979–80. Including


part-time provision, 86 per cent. of 16-year-olds participated in full-time education or youth training schemes in 1989–90. The figure of 16 per cent. participating in full-time education or youth training rises to more than 90 per cent. if private further education provision is included.
In this country we go in for self-flagellation about our performance compared with that of western European countries, usually completely failing to compare like with like and wishing upon astonished western Europeans a perfection of provision which they do not recognise in their towns and villages or in their institutions and factories.
More than 90 per cent. of our 16-year-olds participated in full-time education or youth training schemes in 1989–90. There are almost 50 per cent. more students in further education now than there were in 1979–80. That trend is certainly expected to continue and current forecasts are correct to indicate that there will be another 50 per cent. increase between 1990 and the year 2000.
Education for adults has just been the subject: of an entertaining barrack-room lawyer wrangle, but it is an important and serious subject because more and more adults want to take part in courses of all kinds. During the past decade there has been a 27 per cent. increase in the number of adult enrolments, which means those of 19 or over, in all types of further education. More than 50 per cent. of those enrolments are in further education colleges, compared with under 40 per cent. in 1980.
Our record in higher education is better known—it is one of the most spectacular changes of the Conservative decade of the 1980s. Only one in eight of our young people participated in higher education in 1979. Now it is one in four, and it will plainly be one in three by the end of the decade.
On funding to back up that policy, there has been a real terms increase of more than 20 per cent. for further education in the past decade, and spending on further and adult education centres increased from about £610 million in 1979–80 to an estimated £1·707 billion in 1991–92. That more than 20 per cent. increase excludes spending on work-related further education, which is financed by the Department of Employment, and on higher education in local education authority colleges. Funding for higher education was up by more than 10 per cent. in each of the past three public expenditure settlements. That is a huge investment in successful expansion.
The Government have embarked upon that investment because in our judgment it is good supply side economics. It will improve this country's economic performance if we invest such public resources in the steady expansion of further and higher education. Obviously it is right that we should insist on cost-effective use of that money, and cost-effective expansions would do so.
The Bill will pave the way for further expansion of higher education and further education of all kinds, and will not lead to any contraction. I shall leave the detailed provisions of the Bill, which we shall no doubt discuss in the lengthy Committee stage for which our guillotine makes provision.
The Bill makes one important point which is not politically controversial—it makes important provision for educating people with disabilities. The Government's policy is that disability should not be a bar to access to further or higher education. The Bill is designed to

maintain that position and has been strengthened in another place by amendments on that subject which the Government accepted—they were not forced upon us.
Students with learning difficulties will be able to benefit from the range of opportunities which will be available in the new further education sector. The Bill strengthens existing substantial duties to provide for that group of students and provides a suitable framework within which provision for them can be maintained and developed.
Specifically, the Government have imposed an additional duty on the funding councils over the use of placements for students with learning difficulties, up to the age of 25, in specialist independent colleges. We have also added to the responsibilities of the funding councils in relation to courses for those students in independent living and communication skills.
I have underlined the non-controversial point and that brings the House back to a calm appreciation of the importance of our legislating sensibly for higher and further education to provide for the expansion that we all want to see.
I should mention the Lords amendments which were carried against the wishes of the Government and upon which we have reflected carefully. The Bishop of Guildford, with the support of a number of my noble Friends and other noble Members of the other place, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, tabled a provision relating to religious education and acts of collective worship in sixth form colleges. That is a difficult matter. The amendment established provision to match the existing legal duties on sixth form colleges—in fact, it eases them slightly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I note what my hon. Friends say; indeed, the Government have decided that they will not attempt to reverse their lordships' decision. I learnt with particular astonishment that the amendment was supported by those on the Labour Front Bench in another place.
Another lengthy debate in another place concerned academic independence and the supposed significance of clauses that gave condition-making powers on grants and direction-making powers to the Secretary of State regarding the higher education funding council.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I know that the hon. Gentleman follows matters relating to higher education and research closely and, if he will allow me to continue, I am sure that I shall address the point that he intends to raise.
There was an extremely animated debate in the other place about academic freedom. I know that a number of my hon. Friends would be anxious to sustain it here were that issue to be reopened. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) has already mentioned this matter to me, and he is by no means the only one.
I still do not believe that the Bill, as originally drafted, posed any threat to academic freedom. The clauses upon which the debate centred were technical ones designed to clarify powers that had already been given to the Government by Parliament in 1988. Nevertheless, visions were raised of future Secretaries of State, whether right wing or left wing, seeking to hire and fire lecturers, bar individual students, close courses and undertake a number of other things which, in my opinion, were never remotely raised as possibilities in the Bill.


Certain matters arise when the Secretary of State must account to Parliament for the use of public moneys when, occasionally, he must seek to ensure that even a funding council uses such moneys for the purpose for which Parliament intended. The Secretary of State has to account for those moneys.
There are occasions—I do not claim that it is so in this case with my noble Friends —when academic freedom is discussed, as clinical freedom is sometimes discussed, as a subterfuge for people saying, "Do give us the money and stop asking what has gone on and how we have accounted for it." However, after a prolonged debate, the Government were defeated on that matter. I have considered the amendments and I am perfectly disposed to accept them, and I trust that they will prove adequate to allow a Secretary of State of this or any other Government to account to the House.
The hon. Member for Blackburn is entitled to enjoy the sight of the Government being defeated in another place. However, in the highly unlikely and undesirable case of the hon. Gentleman ever becoming Secretary of State for Education and Science, I am confident that he would table exactly the same clause as I did. I am sure that he would be distinctly annoyed to find that powers of accounting for public money were hacked away on the grounds of academic independence.
In this case, the Government will accept the judgment of their lordships and we will not seek to reverse their decision.

Mr. Dalyell: What can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say to Court of Appeal judges such as Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who expressed concern about the use of the affirmative resolution procedure in relation to clause 77? Please forgive me for intruding as a Scot who is immersed in the Scotland Bill, but I believe that issue is of concern to all of us.

Mr. Clarke: I have the highest regard for Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who has had a highly distinguished legal career and who is certainly a better lawyer than I am. However, his opinion about the application of the law to universities in relation to the Bill was not always beyond controversy. Nevertheless, I would not argue with his opinion.
Lord Simon played an influential part in the debates that led their lordships to believe that it was necessary to amend the Bill. Their lordships now accept the Bill as it stands and the Government, upon reflection, have also decided to do so. We have not recommended any changes to the House. There the matter rests, but with the greatest respect to all those concerned, I believe that those who were anxious about academic freedom have carried the day rather more than they needed to; hence the Bill now appears in its present form.
Sooner or later the House will start to demand of the Secretary of State that he should account for some extraordinary use of public money. However, he will have to turn around and say that those powers were taken from him as a result of amendments to the Bill in another place. Let us hope that the present outcome is satisfactory. Certainly the Government would resist going any further.
The Bill, as it now stands, will enable us to continue the rapid advance in the expansion of opportunities, range of

courses and provision for young people and for adults. It will result in more and better education for 16 to 18-year-olds and for adults. It will lead to greater choice as colleges become more responsive to local demand. It will provide a better deal for students with learning difficulties. It will also provide for greater choice in higher education.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Jack Straw: It is a rare pleasure to be able to welcome part of a Bill introduced by the Government. I welcome unreservedly that part of it which contains the policy for which the Labour party has argued for many years—the creation of a single funding council to take over the work of the existing Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) was Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on higher education he moved amendments in the Committee considering the Education Reform Bill to rid us of the binary divide in higher education. He said that we should get rid of the binary divide and set up one funding body. I am sorry to say that those amendments for the establishment of a single funding body for higher education were resisted by the Government. The then Parliamentary Under-Secretary responsible for higher education, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), said that there were not only practical but philosophical objections to ending the binary divide because there was, "a differentiation of mission between the two sectors of higher education"—[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 24 March 1988; c. 1492.]
In the past four years, the philosophical objections to that change have been shown to be the nonsense that they always were, while the practical case for ending that binary divide has become so overwhelming that even the Government have been forced to acknowledge it.

Dr. Hampson: It is not fair for the hon. Gentleman to make such a petty party point when the philosophical distinction was created by a Labour Government through Tony Crosland and then perpetuated and argued in favour of throughout the 1970s by the then Minister of State for Education and Science, Mr. Gerry Fowler. We all have that in common. Frankly, the hon. Gentleman should welcome the fact that we now have a consensus about degree-awarding status and the change of title. Given that the preparatory work has reached such a stage in the polytechnics, will the hon. Gentleman guarantee that he will cause no further delay to the Bill so that we can get it through before the general election?

Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that I have been inconsistent, let me take him back 25 years to the statements I made against the proposals of Mr. Anthony Crosland to create a binary divide, as enunciated in his Woolwich speech of January 1967. I happened to think that he was wrong, even though he was a member of my party. I have remained of that opinion.
I was not seeking to make a petty point. I only wish that, sometimes, Ministers and their colleagues would listen to the force of our argument. This is not a partisan, party political issue, but the case for ending the binary divide was as strong four years ago as it is today. A good deal was lost by not ending the divide then.
We welcome a sinner who repents and we welcome this late conversion unreservedly. The hon. Member for Leeds,


North-West (Dr. Hampson) asked me what co-operation we intend to give for the passage of the Bill. If all that the Bill contained related to our policy in respect of higher education, for which there is widespread consensus, it would have had an unopposed Second Reading and it could have become law already. Sadly, that is not the case.
I shall deal later with the inadequacy of the Bill to ensure academic standards and the protection of academic freedom, but first I must comment on the issue of names, a subject to which I hope the Secretary of State will give further thought. I have considered carefully the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks about university titles for those remaining colleges of higher education which are not polytechnics. I have noted his remarks about, in his view, the inappropriateness of using the term "university college" because he thinks that it will be confused, for example, with university colleges in Wales and other constituent parts of existing universities.
I ask him to think again and particularly to take account of the precedent of the old university college of North Staffordshire, now Keele university, because that was a very small institution which was just a collection of Nissen huts. It was not called a university college for 10 or 15 years before becoming a university, and there has been no confusion about its nomenclature and those constituent colleges of the university of Wales. Indeed, the name itself helped the establishment of that institution. There will be a problem if there are to be a few colleges—Edgehill college of higher education, Nene college in Northampton and others—which, in a sense, from the name point of view, are wholly separate from the rest of the university sector.
A sad aspect of the Bill is the fact that, although in higher education the Government are ending one binary divide, which is welcome. they are creating two others in further and adult education. Further education is to be riven by a bureaucratic split between locally funded school-based sixth forms and centrally controlled further education and sixth form colleges. Adult education is to be pulled asunder by an artificial, irrational divide between work-related and so-called leisure courses.
At the end of the debate in another place, my noble Friend Baroness Blackstone said that no good educational arguments had been put forward throughout the extensive debates in that House as to why further education should be taken out of local authority control. I have read virtually every page of the Official Report of the debates in the other place, and Baroness Blackstone was absolutely right, for no such arguments exist.
The Government's proposals for further and adult education lack popular support. The Government have no mandate for them. It is no good the Secretary of State—as he tried to do in his speech—claiming in support the further education principals, because there are other people with interests in further education colleges apart from the principals.
I am a governor of a large college of further education, a tertiary college, Blackburn college. That college, like every other, has a majority of governors representing business interests. Only 20 per cent. of the representatives are from the local education authority. The Secretary of State will know, because he has received a letter to the effect, that there was a welcome for corporate status. With one reservation, we also welcomed it, as I have made clear. We are not dismissing the Bill simply because we did not invent it. There was a high degree of scepticism in that

governing body over the fact that financing from Preston, which is democratically accountable, will be replaced by an unaccountable regional advisory body and by control from Whitehall.
The Secretary of State, who is supposed to believe in open government—we now have the citizens charter—has treated the House and those interested in the subject with great contempt in not publishing the responses that he has received to the Bill. I do not understand why he has refused to do that. The Home Secretary did it with responses, not from individuals but from institutions, concerned with the Education Reform Act 1988, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have done the same with this measure.

Mr. Flannery: Frit.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is correct; he is usually correct in his observations.
Further education colleges are among the great unsung successes of the English education system. They are all local in character, serving local needs. Local people without exception have established, maintained and expanded those colleges. They have often been local councillors, articulating and meeting the wishes of their electors.
Four years ago, the contribution of local authorities was recognised even by Ministers. The then Minister of State, now a Minister at the Home Office, the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), said in commending section 120 of the Education Reform Act, which gave local authorities new powers in respect of further education, that she had great confidence that local authorities would fulfil their duty to promote further education, and she commended the previous record of LEAs, as had many Conservative Members.
She was right to pay that tribute because for, more than 13 years, the LEAs and further education colleges under them, and sixth form colleges, had operated in a vacuum. There had been no national policy for further education. Indeed, further education had grown and developed despite, rather than because of, the Government. The Secretary of State came close to admitting that in his opening remarks when he said that further education had
been comparatively neglected.
The shift to tertiary education—to sixth form colleges—in place of unviable sixth forms, has been of great importance in increasing participation rates and opportunities in many areas, as has happened in my constituency, and that shift has occurred as a result of local initiatives rather than as a result of national policy.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It may be a small point, but the hon. Gentleman has a mannerism of constantly slightly misquoting me to make his case. I said that further education had been neglected in political debate. As part of his strange mannerism, he turned that into some kind of acknowledgement that we neglected the financing of further education when the figures I gave showed clearly that we had not. We have expanded financing in real terms and presided over a spectacular increase in the number of students in the decade we have been in power.

Mr. Straw: The record will show whether I quoted the right hon. and learned Gentleman correctly. I had no interest in misquoting him. He makes enough comments against himself for me to quote him correctly. I noted him


saying that further education had been comparatively neglected. The word "finance" did not pass my lips when I repeated his statement, although, as it happens and as the departmental report which he published last week made clear, further education funding per student has gone down in the past three or four years.
The further education system has developed and expanded, as I pointed out. There has been a shift to tertiary colleges and that has been of enormous importance in increasing the opportunities available, especially for 16 to 19-year-olds, in many areas. That has happened despite, rather than because of, the Government.
The Department of Education and Science has dragged its feet for years over reorganisation and has failed to change the outdated and archaic procedure for reorganising schools and colleges. For the last four years, any local authority seeking to deal with the problem of unviable sixth forms in its area, to provide for and expand opportunities for 16 to 19-year-olds, has faced the astonishing dilemma that if it named a school's sixth form for closure, that school could then seek to opt out, and Ministers have been known to be capricious in deciding whether to accept or reject such opt-out proposals.
We saw, for example, how, in the city of Bath opportunities for 16 to 19-year-olds were wrecked by the capricious decision of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor to allow the Beecham Cliff school to opt out. Successive Secretaries of State have failed properly to fund further education—that fact is acknowledged at any rate by some with knowledge of the system—especially in respect of the capital, the building stock, of further education.
If there are no good educational arguments for the change to central control of further education, one wonders why the Secretary of State is going down this road and is intending to split responsibility for 16 to 19 provision. There are two reasons for that. The first can be answered in two words, poll tax, a point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman failed to mention.
The Government's policy was first announced to the House on 21 March of last year, not by the Secretary of State for Education and Science but by the Secretary of State for the Environment. We recall that extraordinary day when five statements were made, all brought together out of the panic of the Secretary of State for the Environment and his Cabinet colleagues trying to solve the dilemma of the poll tax.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It is not true.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State announced it, so he must have a defective memory. I shall refresh it, as policemen say in the witness box. The evidence is on the record to prove that the Secretary of State for the Environment came to the Dispatch Box first and announced what would happen to further education. He left the Secretary of State for Education and Science to give the details but the reason for the policy was announced by the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Clarke: No, no, no.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State appears to have forgotten that.

Mr. Clarke: I shall make no more remarks about policemen and notebooks. If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard, he will see that I made a statement explaining the policy. It may have been a fortuitous coincidence that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made an announcement on the same day, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks that he is producing a conspiracy theory that we introduced that policy only because of the community charge, he is sadly mistaken. The day that I came into office I was determined to introduce such a policy because of the success of the polytechnic policy, of which I had been so firmly in favour some years before.

Mr. Straw: I cannot speak for the Secretary of State's private thoughts on the day that he came into office, and I should not wish to intrude on those except to say that he must have been in a state of shock when he took office on 2 November 1990. He will have been as surprised as anyone else to get the job.
I shall quote the Secretary of State for the Environment—it is no more a misquotation than when I quoted the Secretary of State for Education a moment ago—whose statement was made before the Secretary of State for Education and Science made his statement in the House on 21 March 1991. He said:
The reduction in the local tax burden and the correspondingly larger contribution from central taxation announced in my right hon. Friend's Budget statement"— that meant an increase in value added tax to 17·5 pence in the pound—
imply a need to consider whether a number of functions should now be brought into or financed directly by central Government.
As the right hon. Gentleman denies the idea of centralisation, we should weigh the words
brought into or financed directly by central Government.
The statement continues:
That would be without further changes to the balance between central and local taxation.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is bringing forward today proposals for such a transfer in one area of his responsibility."—[0fficial Report, 21 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 402.]
There is no question about the fact that it was to do with the poll tax. The Secretary of State knows that and the Secretary of State for the Environment said it.

Mr. Clarke: Do not be ridiculous.

Mr. Straw: It is on the record. What is more, had there been a complete separation of thought between the transfer of about £2 billion of funding and the need to get the Government out of a hole on the poll tax, why on earth did the Secretary of State allow that statement to be made on the same day as all the other statements on the poll tax? The Secretary of State for the Environment stole his thunder.

Mr. Clarke: Before this kooky theory runs any further, may I say that I went on to make a statement and announced the policy. The quotation that the hon. Gentleman read from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment does not say that I made a statement because of the need to transfer further education spending from local to central Government taxation. I introduced such a policy and it has been adopted by the Government. It was announced on the same day because it happened to switch some of the expenditure from local to central Government, but it did not put further


education under central control. The only reason why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made his statement first was convention: he is senior in the Government. Regrettably, on that day there was far more interest in the announcement on the community charge than in the vital matter of the reform of further education.

Mr. Straw: I am not sure what a jury would make of the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, but my view is that he is guilty as charged. As we have a corroborated confession statement, voluntarily offered before consenting adults in the House, we have the Secretary of State "bang to rights". If the Secretary of State does not like us saying that that is why he took that route—I have no doubt that that was the reason as it was how Government publicity managers and the Secretary of State presented it on that day—the Secretary of State cannot wriggle out of it.
The second reason why the Secretary of State has gone down that odd route of taking central control over further education is his obsession, as we heard again this afternoon, about local councillors. It verges on paranoia. He cannot speak about local councils without sneering at them. When he does so, he sneers at the rights of local people to elect their representatives and have a say in the running of their areas.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment.
The Secretary of State's contempt is even greater for Conservative councils than for Labour ones. No one has ever said that local councils should have complete control over the education service, but they should have a say in it and their right, as elected representatives, is significant. A substantial part of further education should not be passed to unaccountable, unelected quangos, as the Secretary of State proposes. His failure to acknowledge that right has already led him into a policy that is grievous to him—the privatisation of the schools inspectorate—and I regret to say that it is leading him into another.
In a few weeks' time, Ministers and Conservative Members will expect Conservative councillors to work for them in an attempt to bring them back into office. It may be sensible if they listen to what their Conservative colleagues in local government have to say about the Bill. For example, the Prime Minister's Conservative-controlled local authority, Cambridgeshire, said:
There is widespread and deep concern in both the FE and schools sector that the proposals are fundamentally flawed, that they lack a convincing and cogent rationale and that ultimately they will not work".
The Secretary of State was disparaging when I suggested that that would lead to central control—a phrase that the Secretary of State for the Environment seemed to imply.
Conservative-controlled Essex council said:
In reality, the apparently free-standing colleges would be controlled by new remote national councils in England and Wales which would, in turn, be controlled by their respective Secretary of State who would appoint their membership, and ration their funding. This represents an unhealthy centralisation of power over a service that is essentially concerned with meeting the needs of individuals locally".

Mr. Dunn: I wanted to take up the hon. Gentleman's point about contempt for local authorities. Was there not contempt in circular No. 1066, which required local authorities to go comprehensive under a Labour

Government? Was there not contempt for local education authorities in the Education Act 1976, which compelled local education authorities to go comprehensive? Is there not contempt now for local authorities in Labour party policies—and a future Labour Government, if ever elected— which would compel local education authorities to go comprehensive against the wishes of the local authority and elected representatives?

Mr. Straw: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would say that. Incidentally, it was circular No. 1065. Nothing in what I have said is inconsistent with the suggestion that admission arrangements for schools should be settled by the House. That has happened under this Government as much as under previous Governments. I understand the hon. Gentleman's embarrassment, especially in his constituency, because on the one hand he says that he wants to keep grammar schools but on the other some of the 106 grammar schools closed by this Government were closed when he was a Minister responsible for education. In the 13 years since 1979, 106 grammar schools have been closed.
There are enormous objections to the scheme for taking over further education specified in the Bill. The Secretary of State has sought to justify the scheme by saying that it is based on the experience of the polytechnics. As was explained at enormous length in another place, there is no parallel between the position of the polytechnics and that of further education and sixth form colleges. The polytechnics were national institutions. For eight years before they went into the polytechnic and colleges funding sector there was a quasi-national arrangement under the national advisory board in which the local authorities participated. For years before that, there was the advanced further education pool, which ensured that there was a system of national funding, although local authorities were responsible individually for the institutions in their area. Therefore, there was a long history of build-up towards a national system.
We supported the final removal of the polytechnics from the local government sector to the polytechnic and colleges funding sector. By 1988 it seemed anomalous that they should be responsible to their local authority, because they were national institutions. There are only 80 of those institutions, including small colleges, compared with 550 sixth form and further education colleges. All those FE and sixth form colleges are local and serve local needs.
Contrary to what the Secretary of State said, he should be aware that the greatest proportional expansion in polytechnics took place between 1980 and 1988 when they were under local authority control. There was approaching a 40 per cent. increase in the number of full-time students attending polytechnics. It was just as well that that took place. Although I welcome the Government's present policy to expand higher education, that has not always been their policy since 1979.
At the beginning of this Administration, when the Secretary of State was Sir Keith Joseph, there was a policy not of the expansion but of the contraction of higher education. Paradoxically, the part of the system that was supposed to be the most autonomous, the university sector, maintained its numbers more or less level while the local authority controlled polytechnics met the expanded demand. The expansion was led and met by local authorities, albeit with some benign support from some people in the Department of Education and Science.

Mr. George Walden: The hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to the polytechnics for taking the burden of the expansion—and it was a burden at that time. In all fairness, however, he should praise the Government a little and perhaps give even a tiny sliver of praise to former Ministers responsible for higher education for gently encouraging the polytechnic system along that road by firmly steering them towards cutting their unit costs.

Mr. Straw: I said that the expansion was supported by part of the Department of Education and Science. I am sorry that I did not mention the hon. Gentleman by name, but I am happy to do so now and to commend him for his role. I hope that that does not damage him too much in the forthcoming general election.
There is no parallel with the polytechnics. Because of that, the Government are having to accept a much higher degree of bureaucratic control for the further education sector than exists with the polytechnics. For years the polytechnics have been effectively running themselves. They have effective, sound, central administrations.
The problem with the further education sector is that it is variable. The college of which I am a governor has a substantial administration. I fully support that under devolved management from Lancashire county council it has much greater day-to-day autonomy. That is welcomed by all. It can run itself, and I look forward to its receiving corporate status. There are smaller further education colleges—for example, one in Coventry that disastrously ran off the rails and was saved only by local authority intervention. Some sixth form colleges have no administration—

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): No free-standing administration.

Mr. Straw: No free-standing administration. I am grateful to the Minister for that correction.
Because there are 550 colleges, we should recognise the need for much closer day-to-day bureaucratic control from the funding councils and the regional bodies than there is in respect of the polytechnics. In truth, the Government are replacing locally elected authorities with unelected regional and national bodies for running further education.
The third objection is that the elimination of local authority involvement will lead to a duplication of facilities for further education and 16 to 19-year-old provision. It will remove the dynamic for change that has been there until now. The local authorities have been the midwives of change. The Secretary of State winces at the suggestion, but it is true. I know that he does not like local authorities, but he must acknowledge that they do some good. In one area after another local authorities have recognised when sixth forms have become unviable and have made proposals for transferring sixth form work to local sixth form colleges or further education colleges. It has often been difficult. Some schools will always object to the removal of their sixth forms, but it is widely recognised in Conservative and Labour-controlled areas that, in general, where a switch to tertiary education has occurred, it has led to a great improvement in and expansion of the opportunities, both academic and vocational. There is no question about that.
One of the major defects of the Bill is that no body or institution has responsibility for securing that change. Small sixth forms will carry on despite high unit costs and will be unable to offer a range of courses. The whole system may atrophy.
The fourth objection to the FE provisions is that the Bill paves the way for future Secretaries of State or colleges to end free education for 16 to 19-year-olds. We have expressed our concern about creeping privatisation in the education system. Under the Education Reform Act 1988 education in schools, including those for 16 to 18-year-olds, must be free. There is no similar provision in respect of further education. Education for 16 to 19-year-olds has been provided free as a matter of practice, not as a matter of law.
In the other place Lord Peston, because sixth form colleges are to be removed from the school system, moved amendments to make the law clear beyond peradventure that education would continue to be free for 16 to 19-year-olds, regardless of whether it took place in schools, sixth form colleges or FE colleges. I regret to say that, although the amendment was carefully drafted, the Minister, Lord Belstead, resisted it. He gave an undertaking that it was not the intention to change the practice. I am afraid to say that we have all heard that sort of undertaking: it was not the intention to double VAT.
In reply to the debate, Lord Peston said:
This issue concerns the fundamental principle that education in the compulsory sector and in the full-time post-16 sector should be and must be guaranteed to be free." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 January 1992; c. 172.]
As there is a major question about whether the law is adequate to guarantee that education for 16 to 19-year-olds should be free, I should like to hear from the Secretary of State that he is ready to accept an amendment similar to that moved by Lord Peston to make it free regardless of where it takes place.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: As the law stands, the Government could at any time have pressed for the introduction of fees for further education for 16 to 18-year-olds in FE colleges. We never have. It is not our policy to charge fees for further education. We are completely committed not to introduce fees for further education. All this is a bit of a red herring.

Mr. Straw: I am not sure that the Secretary of State is aware of the point. Far from being a red herring, the matter was debated extensively in the other place. If there is no intention of charging young people for their education beyond 16, why will the Secretary of State not consider the amendment that was carefully drafted and put forward by Lord Peston in the other place and accept it in Committee?
The fifth objection is that these proposals contain no clear policy for increasing participation rates. The Secretary of State made heavy weather of the current figures on participation rates. He tried to include young people on youth training schemes to dress up the figures. I have with me the latest volume of educational statistics. Although they show a welcome improvement, the proportion of 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education—not just youngsters doing their GCSE resits—in 1989 was 37 per cent. That is below any other major industrialised country mentioned in the DES table.


The Secretary of State himself admitted that the current situation is far from satisfactory. When he finally got round to making a statement, on 21 March last year, after the Secretary of State for the Environment, he said:
We still lag behind our competitors in the participation of our school leavers in further education and training and their achievement of useful qualifications."—[Official Report, 21 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 432.]
I am glad that Ministers realise that we are at the bottom of the league.
We would do what the Trades Union Council and the Confederation of British Industry have been urging, which is to set clear targets with the aim of achieving, over five years, a situation in which 80 per cent. of young people obtain what is called national vocational qualification level 2, roughly equivalent to 5 GCSEs, grade A to C, and over a 10-year period 50 per cent. achieve NVQ level 3.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), in December 1989, committed the Government to such targets as a matter of policy, but those commitments were ratted on only a month later by the then Prime Minister and by the current Secretary of State for Employment, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). We believe that targets should be set and adhered to by Government and local authorities and that they should be the basis for funding and for expansion of the system.
The sixth objection is that, while the Secretary of State and the White Paper talk in fine phrases of ending the academic and vocational divide, there is nothing in the Bill about ending it. All that is proposed is a piece of elastoplast to stretch over the distinction between A-levels and vocational qualifications. That elastoplast is to be called an advanced diploma when what is needed is a merging, an integration, of the academic and the
vocational examination systems, as we proposed, well ahead of the Government, in our advanced certificate of education and training. We propose a single examining authority which would bring together the National Council for Vocational Qualifications and that part of the schools examination assessment council dealing with 16-plus examinations.

Mr. Walden: This is not a frivolous intervention. I am quite impressed by the Labour party's recognition of the need to stream in secondary schools as between the academic, the vocational and the technological, if I have understood the hon. Gentleman correctly. That is very much in the thrust of Government policy, although it goes only halfway. What is the logic of doing that at secondary level and then creating what I would regard as a dangerous mush between the academic and the technological and vocational at a higher level?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman, I know, writes for The Daily Telegraph and evidently he also reads it, but he should not always believe what is written in it. I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of our proposals both for key stage 4 and for post-16.

Mr. James Pawsey: rose—

Mr. Straw: It is quite important that I get on, because many hon. Members wish to speak. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, if he insists, but it is taking up other hon. Members' time.
The right hon. Gentleman closed off once again the question of the reform of A-levels. This has been proposed

widely, not only by the Opposition but by Conservative Members as well. We want the Government to accept the proposals made in the Higginson report, which the Secretary of State's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), was ready to endorse on behalf of the Government until his opinion was countermanded by the then Prime Minister. The Secretary of State is virtually alone in seeking to maintain support for the over-specialised three-subject A-levels. The vice chancellors want reform, the directors of polytechnics want reform, most employers want reform and not only do those involved in the state school system and the further education system want reform but so do, for example, the Girls' Schools Association and many Conservative local education authorities.
The case for reforming A-levels is not about reducing standards, because the five-subject A-level would be more stretching, tougher on most students, than the three-subject A-level. The case for the reform of A-levels, as Higginson proposed, is that it would end this over-specialisation at 16-plus, which ensures that a very large proportion of our brightest youngsters leave full-time education between the ages of 16 and 19 without adequate education, particularly in science and technology subjects.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can be saying that the Labour party supports Higginson; I do not think that anybody supports Higginson any more. The hon. Gentleman is evading the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden). He is describing the abolition of A-levels and their replacement by one system of examinations for all 18-year olds, whatever their aptitude, ability or inclination, because he cannot stand the idea of distinguishing between the academic and the vocational. Does he really think that by the age of 18 every young man and woman can be expected to take the same examination or enter into the same system of qualifications without damaging the standard of the A-levels, which he so dislikes?

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State completely fails to understand the issue. It is a matter not just of understanding our policy but of understanding the argument against three-subject A-levels. We have supported the five-subject A-level for almost as long as the Higginson report has been published. If the Secretary of State wishes to end the academic and vocational divide and is serious about that, there is no reason why there should not be different examinations which cater for young people with a vocational bent, or for those with an academic bent, or for those who wish to follow some subjects of an academic nature and some of a vocational nature—

Mr. Pawsey: rose—

Mr. Straw: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment because he is always very persistent.
There is no reason why that range of opportunities should not come under the umbrella of a single examining board. Indeed, if that is not done, we will not break down the academic and vocational divide. That is the experience in France and in many other countries.

Mr. Pawsey: If the hon. Gentleman has his way and abolishes A-levels, what will the implications be for the existing three-year degree of his five-subject A-level course?

Mr. Straw: It is not our five-subject A-level course; it is the Higginson committee's. That committee was set up by this Administration, reporting to this Administration, and whose recommendations Education Ministers wanted to accept in 1988. The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that the vice-chancellors and the directors of polytechnics want the five-subject A-level because they realise that it will mean that their students will be far better educated and prepared for higher education than they are at the moment.
Let me deal briefly with the issue of adult education. Adult education, as the Secretary of State finally, although reluctantly, admitted, has been in many ways a credit to local education authorities in this country. Some people have described it as the jewel in the crown in the work of local education authorities. It is a service which has developed locally, like further education, and has been wholly neglected by Government.
The proposals in the White Paper and in the Bill threaten the whole structure and delivery of adult education. It is no good the Secretary of State dismissing all the objections to his proposals as nonsense. I am very glad to have acknowledgement of what I am saying by the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). One cannot just dismiss the views of local education authorities, Conservative as well as Labour, of students in adult education and of associations of a non-partisan, non-political nature, such as the women's institutes and the Women's Royal Voluntary Service. One cannot dismiss the 6 million people who take part in adult education as having objections which are nonsensical, as the Secretary of State has sought to do, as if they had invented the proposals which the Secretary of State explained so poorly to the House earlier this afternoon.
The truth is that Ministers never properly considered the impact of these proposals on the adult education service. They were put in as a postscript and never considered. If they had considered them they should never have come forward with these proposals.

Sir John Farr: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because it gives me an opportunity that the Secretary of State denied me to tell the hon. Gentleman that the adult education proposals have been put to Leicestershire education authority since I saw the Minister last week. The authority unanimously turned them down as being totally inadequate.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who usually fully supports the Government. In addition, Leicestershire county council is not a Labour authority. If the Secretary of State cannot convince his hon. Friends about the sense of the proposal, he cannot convince anybody. That is because the proposal is plainly daft. It is fundamentally flawed in distinguishing between what is work related and what is leisure related.
The Secretary of State said that the Bill does not cut a line between one part of adult education and another. But it does, and that is clearly shown by the drafting contortions in schedule 2, which lays down the courses that will come under the further education funding council. It is ludicrous, farcical, that because a course for

basic literacy in English or to improve the knowledge of English of those for whom English is not the language spoken at home comes within the ambit of the further education funding council, a German who wants to learn English will get the money from the FEFC but an English person who wants to learn German, but not in pursuit of a GCSE, has to get the money from the LEA. How will that affect those who deliver adult education? The Secretary of State sought to explain this bureaucratic circus, this monstrosity that he has invented, but I am afraid that not only were we not convinced but few of his hon. Friends were.
Let us look at the case of someone who attends a flower arranging course. On the face of it, flower arranging seems to be a leisure-related rather than a work-related course. During the course, someone might discover an aptitude for flower arranging and decide to become a florist. Who will fund that course? What about cake decoration? To begin with, a person following such a course might do so out of interest and might later decide to become a caterer and work for a qualification. Who will fund that? These are serious questions.

Mr. Elliot Morley: In his speech, the Secretary of State did not allow an intervention on Humberside where there is a large adult education centre. It is devolved to the rural areas, including the rural parts of my constituency. It will be split in two, with half the vocational courses going to the funding council and half being left with the LEA. When they are split in half, they lose the infrastructure of the outstations and small colleges, which they maintain, and they lose half the staff. They have to go cap in hand to the college which has vocational courses. What happens if they are not relinquished? The proposal cuts the service in half and threatens courses in rural areas.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right. The Secretary of State said that the proposals for adult education were "straightforward". I say to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) that they are as straightforward as the maze at Hampton Court.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I fail to see what is complicated beyond understanding in Humberside college having to obtain funding from two sources. If two sources support different courses, that does not have the consequences that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) claims. A cake-making course is a ridiculous example. If a local authority finances such a course, and sets fees, which it can do, it does not have to strike off the course a student who suddenly decides that he wants a cake-making qualification. This is a nonsensical campaign about a part of the Bill and the reforms which do not affect the ordinary provision of adult education in anything like the way that the hon. Gentleman seeks to claim.

Mr. Straw: It is not a nonsensical campaign. If there was any merit in the Secretary of State's proposals, it would be reasonable to suggest that any of his hon. Friends would support him. Not one sought to speak in support of his proposals.

Mr. Harry Greenway: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall not give way because I wish to make progress. There is enormous scepticism and a great deal of opposition to the proposal, and the Minister knows that as well as I do.
I shall deal briefly with higher education. The first issue is quality control. During the debate on the Queen's Speech, the Secretary of State sought to assert that quality control in higher education could be adequately protected simply by using the funding council. He failed to see any reason for distinguishing between those involved in quality control and those involved in funding. I am glad to say that, in the other place, the Government accepted the need for some separation in terms of quality control because the quality control committees of the funding council will have to have a majority of members who are not drawn from that council. In Committee, we shall table amendments to seek to make quality control quite separate from the funding councils, because that is the best way to ensure the proper maintenance of standards.
We were glad to hear that the Secretary of State had finally accepted the arguments in favour of controls on his power to dictate to individual institutions. The original powers were not minor. There was a try-on in 1988 and the powers were potentially monstrous. We are glad that the Minister has accepted the Beloff amendment. However, there is great merit in the amendment moved by Lord Simon of Glaisdale in the other place for affirmative resolution control on the use of the powers. We shall table such amendments in Committee.
The Government have no mandate for the Bill, which represents a centralising and authoritarian takeover of local colleges and the replacement of local accountability by a new, untried and bureaucratic system under the Department of Education and Science. They have no mandate to railroad the measure through under the guillotine that will be debated later. The further education sections of the Bill are fatally flawed. They have no educational justification but were born of the poll tax. We may not defeat the Bill, but it is one more reason why we shall defeat the Government in the coming election.

Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: There is much in the Bill which is to the credit of the Secretary of State who conceived it. Unhappily, he has knowingly and deliberately polluted it with a breach of principle so serious as to render the Bill itself unacceptable, and it is to that which I shall direct my attention. It is concerned with the community colleges. May I mention in passing that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State appears to be under the mistaken impression that community colleges are confined to rural areas? His actual words were: "In rural areas, we will have community colleges." The city of Plymouth is not a rural area. Does he mean that the college there will be closed? Is that the Government's intention?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: No, nor, as I have sought to explain, do the provisions which I suspect my hon. Friend slightly misunderstands pollute the Bill in the way in which he feels strongly that they do. The Government have no intention of closing Plymouth college, and nothing in the Bill need lead to any change in the arrangements at that college. The funding council will make its arrangements for provision as it judges best in accordance with the Bill's

provisions. I think that that meets my hon. Friend's point. The proposals were amended at one stage to try to meet his point.

Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: If the Bill had been produced at very short notice and introduced first to the House, it might have been possible to assent to it on Second Reading in the reasonable hope and expectation that it would be acceptably amended in Committee. But that is not its history. Early in September, having ascertained that that was not too late to secure alteration to the Bill, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller), who for more than 12 years has taken a constructive interest in public sector education, took a deputation of five community college principals to see the Secretary of State.
The important breach of principle is this. It is an elementary principle of natural justice that an arbitrator must never have a personal interest in the result of his arbitration. I would have hoped that that principle could not be denied by anyone in this House. It is that principle which the Secretary of State has knowingly and deliberately breached.
The community colleges have to submit funding applications to arbitrators, that is to say, to further education colleges, who themselves have a perfectly natural and proper interest in attracting maximum course funding for themselves so as to spread their overhead costs over the largest possible number of courses. They are arbitrators because they are not automatic forwarders of such applications to the funding councils. They have an incentive not to do so. So the principle of natural justice, that an arbitrator must not have a personal interest in the outcome of his arbitration, is violated, and that pollutes the Bill unacceptably.
I have the distinct impression, which I cannot escape after five months of negotiation and correspondence with my right hon. and learned Friend over this, that he resents the fact that the actual pattern of education in some parts of Britain is different from his conceptual pattern which he wishes existed instead. Community colleges are an extremely intelligent way of using resources because the physical structure of the school, much of the equipment and the facilities in it are used by adults when they would otherwise be used by no one.
For that reason, quite often they are part-funded in those facilities, not just by local education authorities but by district councils as well, so that people living locally can use, for instance, the gymnasium or the sports hall or the swimming pool when it would otherwise be put to no use at all. In other words, the whole surrounding community benefits, and the taxpayer, both national and local government, gets better value for his investment in the premises concerned.
I shall have to speak of reality rather than concept. It is all very well for my right hon. and learned Friend to say that the local education authority can pay for this and pay for that. The reality is that, within the constraints of the standard spending assessment under the revenue support grant system currently in use, they do not have that real option, as opposed to conceptual option, because their resources are so fully committed— particularly in rural areas where the pattern is one of the widespread existence of small schools—that they simply do not have the optional resources left over to employ in a way which the


Bill permits, but there is no reality of use for those powers because the resources are not there, and we cannot expect them to be there.
So the community colleges, which probably make the best single use of the capital investment in them, provide further education and adult education as well as their primary function of secondary education. This means that the children at that school for secondary education can have a wider spectrum of syllabus opportunity, since some of the same staff who teach less popular disciplines to the children can be retained because they are also teaching adults in the adult education function of it.
Now I come to timing. It is no good my right hon. and learned Friend asking us to look at clause 53, which gives him power to make orders, if there are bloody-minded FE colleges that unreasonably refuse to further applications. Time is of the essence. When there was a Liberal-controlled education committee in Devon, and its then chairman, a certain Mrs. Rogers, grossly abused the governors and staff of Burlescombe County Primary School so that I had to ask the Attorney-General to intervene, and he located a power which the then Secretary of State for Education and Science had to remedy the situation by order, only one day before the commencement of the new term could that order be made, because of the steps that had to be gone through to avoid the possibility of the order being frustrated by an application for judicial review.
The essence of this is timing. To enable a community college to put on courses that are actually attended, time is crucial. To start with, in April for the coming year the governors and senior teaching staff have to draw up their syllabus programme—the programme depending on the syllabus, of course. They have to do that within their financial resources, and they do not know what the total throughput will be, over which they are spreading their overhead costs, unless and until they know what adult courses they are going to be able to put on as well. To imagine that they can wait week after week while section 53 is first put into operation and then grinds slowly on in such a way that it will not expose the Secretary of State to judicial review is unreal, because, after the community college has decided what courses it wants to put on, for which it believes there to be demand, it cannot then send its application to the funding council: it has to send it to an FE college. The FE college has then to discover what all the local bus services are, in an area with which it may not be very familiar, for access to the FE college, because it has to decide whether it itself is making adequate provision for the area served by the community college. It is no good the Minister of State shaking his head. If he does not know that, he has not mastered his subject.
This can be very time-consuming where there is more than one FE college covering the same area. It means that the one FE college to which the application was made has to discover what courses are contemplated by the other FE college, as well as local availability of public transport, which itself is not guaranteed to run for any particular period of time. The governors then have to make sure that the staff, equipment and materials are available. All that has to be done in time to advertise the courses and get a response from the potential users, the adult students of

those courses. Only then, before the beginning of the new term, can it be decided whether the courses will actually be provided.
Meanwhile, those who have applied for them, in the expectation that the courses will be there, do not and cannot know, because the governors themselves do not and cannot know, whether the courses will be there. If the application is not sent on by the FE college—in other words, is not approved and sent on to the funding council—the whole of that will have aborted, and in many cases the potential adult students concerned will have lost the opportunity to apply for alternative courses elsewhere.
This is the real world about which my right hon. and learned Friend and his junior Ministers appear to be wholly ignorant, or alternatively about which they would prefer not to know.

Mr. Michael Latham: Much of what my hon. Friend is saying is also relevant to Leicestershire—particularly his point about remoteness and distance. In Leicestershire, the adult basic education service is not provided in colleges of further education. Sometimes, it is not even provided in community colleges but instead in church halls or even people's homes. Therefore, it is all the more important that it should remain as a free-standing service rather than being dealt with, unfortunately, in the way that the Bill would deal with it. The whole basis of my hon. Friend's speech, which I am following with great interest, is, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He has knowledge of the educational pattern in his area of which I am ignorant, just as I am more familiar with the educational pattern in my part of Devon than I am with that of north Devon.

Mr. Tony Speller: Does my hon. Friend agree that what we really require for good education is peace? That is the problem as I see it—I hope that my hon. Friend will agree. In my area, we have six community colleges and sixth form colleges of which I have not, in 30 years, had one single complaint relating to the courses offered or to the pleasure of learning taken from them. Should not the logic be that we allow these community colleges to continue with direct access to the funding authorities so that they can go on, without let or hindrance, wasting time or anything else, doing a very good job? As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) said, if the machine works, for goodness' sake leave it alone.

Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I am grateful for that contribution from my hon. Friend, because his area is different from mine, in one of the most dispersed educational patterns of any LEA in England.
I shall conclude by saying this. The Bill has already been through another place, where there was every opportunity for my right hon. and learned Friend to secure amendment to it so as to deal with the real problems, which I am not drawing to his attention for the first time tonight, which were drawn to his attention when he was good enough to receive the deputation in September, to which I referred earlier, and which have been pressed since by correspondence invoking such weight as the Patronage Secretary may happen to carry as well: but without success.


What has emerged is a certain number of sub-clauses which cannot meet the need because they are incapable of functioning with sufficient speed to meet the time programme, which I have described, I think, with complete accuracy. It is because of the determination of my right hon. and learned Friend not to accommodate his Bill to the reality that exists, but instead to resent the reality that exists for not meeting the concept of the Bill that, with great regret, I shall find myself in the No Lobby tonight.

Mr. Michael Carr: The Liberal Democrats share the Secretary of State's aims for a better educated and trained people. We also applaud his reference to a continuing entitlement to education, and his stated aims for a near-universal further education and a mass higher education system. All these are laudable aims.
In higher education, we welcome the ending of the binary divide. This move has widespread support, both inside and outside the House, and it is long overdue, as the Secretary of State said. We hope that this will lead to a choice of courses unfettered by the names of institutions. People have been guided by the reputation and the names of certain institutions when they might well have chosen a course more appropriately taught in a polytechnic. We hope that this will disappear with the ending of the binary divide.
However, the expansion of numbers in higher education poses a number of problems. Are the expanded numbers to be catered for simply by cramming more students into existing buildings and on to existing courses? Will there be an extension of the large-scale block lecture approach, to cater for the number of students who we hope will enter higher education? Will there be access to research on equal terms? Perhaps the Minister will explain how the Secretary of State intends to achieve that—the Secretary of State referred to it briefly.
There has been reference to the terms and conditions of academics teaching in higher education institutions. The Secretary of State dismissed the idea of a pay review body, but not too convincingly. We should welcome a pay review body.
The Secretary of State also mentioned quality control in higher education. I was glad to hear that the quality control function of the further education councils is to be distinct from their other functions. However, I should have preferred an extension of the powers of Her Majesty's inspectorate in this sector to ensure independent review of quality control in these institutions.
The divide between academic and vocational qualifications is to be ended. We see this as a vital and essential step forward, but it is difficult to see how it can be achieved with A-levels continuing in their present form. Without reform of A-levels, the removal of the academic/vocational divide will remain illusory and elusive. In itself, the gold standard of A-levels will ensure that the divide continues, although I accept that that is not the Government's stated intention.
It is clear from the Bill that the Government do not like local government or trust local democracy. It is apparent to many people working in education that the Bill is part of a continuing attack on local government, given the background of successive Acts of Parliament since the Government first came to power and their repeated attacks on local government, not just on its education powers. It is also clear that the Bill gives the Government a way to get

off the poll tax hook—something that has also been referred to already. It can create, and will create, an opportunity for the Government to fiddle about with poll tax levels.
On a more practical level, there is a danger that the variety of 16-to-19 provision that will exist after the Bill becomes law will make the rational planning of post-16 education more difficult. The local education authorities will retain responsibility for sixth forms in schools, albeit on a locally managed basis, and for non-vocational adult education, while further education funding councils will have the responsibility for sixth form colleges and FE colleges. Diversity may be one word for it—we welcome diversity—but there is also a risk of confusion and difficulties in planning.
I want to refer very briefly to colleges that combine further education functions and higher education functions. I am thinking of institutions, such as Bradford and Ilkley community college, that students can enter with no formal qualifications whatsoever and leave with a degree. I visited the Bradford and Ilkley college two or three weeks ago. There, and in similar institutions, there is genuine concern that it may be difficult to achieve that combination. I hope that the Minister, in his summing-up speech, will address this problem.

Mr. Eggar: I have paid two visits to Bradford and Ilkley community college, and I do not think that there will be any difficulty for it. In respect of schedule 2 courses, it will be funded by the further education funding council, and in respect of higher education courses it will be funded by the higher education funding council. In addition, the local education authority will continue to provide funding in that area. I should remind the hon. Gentleman and some of my hon. Friends that colleges such as the Bradford and Ilkley community college are very used to having lots of different sources of finance for lots of different courses.

Mr. Carr: I want to turn to adult education. The Secretary of State has said that there is no threat to the pattern of continuing education. He has said that local education authorities have a duty to provide non-vocational education for adults, that funds will be provided for that purpose, and that it will be for the authorities to distribute those funds. In September, he expressed the same view in a rather bullish letter to all his colleagues, following the summer campaign organised by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the women's institutes and other bodies. The fact that he did not convince those organisations is shown by the letters that I and other right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are still receiving.
The local education authorities will lose the money that would have been allocated to them for further education. A large slice of the education budget will be devolved to schools under local management. I am worried that, when the responsibilities for statemented pupils, education welfare and school transport have been discharged, local education authorities may find it difficult to fund the very non-vocational courses to which the Secretary of State referred. Perhaps the Minister's summing-up speech will provide some clarification on that point.

Mr. Jessel: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that he ought to wait to hear what the Minister of State says in response to my intervention and to points made by other hon. Members on this very subject?

Mr. Carr: I have made my comments on that very point, and I do not propose to dwell further on it. We shall indeed hear what the Minister says when he sums up.
The Secretary of State, who said that he does not often refer to questionnaires, referred to a questionnaire that had been sent to college principals. I should like to draw attention to a question to which he did not refer. It is about the likely future balance between vocational courses and non-vocational courses following the introduction of the measures proposed in the Bill.
Forty-three per cent. of college principals felt that there would be fewer so-called leisure classes, and 14 per cent. of them thought that overall provision would decline. The college principals have views to which the Secretary of State probably did not want to refer, but I have now made them available.
The Government's propaganda on adult education is not being believed. Adult colleges are in a difficult position. Richmond college, which has been referred to, has 25,000 students— more than many further education colleges have. There is concern about how this funding will be secured if further education colleges, for their own reasons, are not too willing to forward applications.
There is a growing feeling that adult education colleges that do not have governing bodies as legal entities ought to have such bodies, and that smaller adult education centres ought to be able to form consortia, with a governing body recognised as a legal entity. If we have to go down this road of funding councils, if we have to lose local democratic control, the adult institutions themselves and the consortia could apply directly to a funding council. Indeed, it has been suggested that perhaps there ought to be an adult education funding council, but that matter is not within the scope of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) referred to people gaining from leisure courses skills that enable them to enter self-employment or to go on to courses that will equip them with qualifications. That is an aspect of adult non-vocational education that we understand and accept, but there is another dimension. Adult non-vocational education is not only about self-employment or about the possibility of further qualifications; it is also about self-fulfilment, about the meeting of personal needs that fall within the broad definition of education. I am concerned that that aspect may suffer. For many elderly people, women and individuals living alone, the so-called leisure classes provide an opportunity for self-fulfilment.
Underlying everything is the suspicion that the question of additional resources—the one thing to which the Government do not refer in this Bill—will be skated over. If the numbers in higher education are to be expanded, if we are to continue to provide adult non-vocational classes, if the number of people participating in education beyond the age of 16 is to expand, there is a resource implication.
The Government ought to be honest and say that, if they are to achieve their own stated aims, they may—from the point of view of Conservative Members, heaven forbid— face the possibility that income tax will have to be raised. My party has said that it would do that. We are prepared to provide the funds that education needs by increasing the standard rate of income tax by 1p in the pound. I should like to see from the Government a commitment to the provision of increased resources.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has applied a 10-minute limit to speeches delivered between now and 9 o'clock.

Sir Richard Luce: In this House, it is a convention that hon. Members declare existing interests. I do not have an existing interest, but I think that it would be courteous to declare that, after retiring from the House at the general election, I shall become vice-chancellor of the university of Buckingham. Against the background of all the exciting changes that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is bringing about, I regard that as a wonderful challenge.
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on this Bill, which will strengthen our policies on further and higher education. Our record is clearly a good one. It is interesting to reflect on my time at university, which I confess was 30 years ago. At that time, one in 14 of those aged 18 years was able to go to university. In 1979, the ratio was 1:8. Today it is 1:4, and we anticipate that by the end of the decade it will be 1:3. There has been remarkable change. Over the past 10 years, the number of students at polytechnics has increased by about 50 per cent. There has been a 55 per cent. increase in the number of mature students. Clearly there have been significant changes since 1979. These figures demonstrate the scale and pace of the change that has taken place.
Our university system has a good reputation for the quality of eduction within it. It is interesting to note that graduate output in the United Kingdom is the same as that of France and of Germany. Fewer students are admitted to the United Kingdom university system, but the drop-out rate here is far less than elsewhere. The rate here is about one sixth, whereas in many universities elsewhere in Europe it is about 50 per cent.

Mr. Pawsey: Perhaps my hon. Friend will care to speculate for a moment on the plan of Opposition Members to reduce the A-levels to five-subject examinations. What impact does he think that that will have on the degree system in British universities?

Sir Richard Luce: There have already been some exchanges on this issue, which is a serious one. Our concern is to increase and enhance the quality of our university education, which is already extremely good. The Channel 4 commission on education had this to say:
British graduates are acknowledged throughout the world to be of a very high standard. Our job is not only to maintain that but to enhance it still further.
The Bill surely does a great deal to strengthen that purpose with its single funding structure, with the absorption of polytechnics into the university system, with separate higher education funding councils and with important procedures of quality assurance. All these factors are singularly important.
Above all else, the Bill will help to increase competition between institutions for students and for funds, but on the basis of equal status between different types of institution. That will be underpinned by a firm system of quality assurance, which is an extremely important feature of the Bill.
I turn now to academic freedom. Towards the end of his speech, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State gave the important assurance that the Government


would not seek to reverse the amendments that were made in another place. That assurance is singularly important, and I am grateful to my right hon and learned Friend for giving it. However, when he and his ministerial colleagues examine the Bill in Committee, I ask them to take a fresh look at clauses 68 and 81. My experience in Parliament over the past 21 years is that the law is incomprehensible. The two clauses still lack comprehensibility, and it needs to be beyond all doubt that the Secretary of State has no intention of interfering in the academic freedom of universities. That must be made absolutely clear in the Bill.
Surely the principle is clear: that no Secretary of State of whatever Government should have the right to intervene specifically in the affairs of individual institutions in a way that affects the academic freedom of those institutions. It must be right, however, that, when dealing with taxpayers' money, the Secretary of State must be accountable to the House for that money. I draw an analogy with my experience over five years as Minister for the Arts. Sensitivity about preserving the artistic freedom of bodies funded by taxpayers was such that I think that, if I had tried to intervene, for example, in the affairs of the royal national theatre or the Royal Opera house, in terms of how they presented their productions and what productions they undertook, I would have been strung up in Whitehall, and rightly so. It is essential that we preserve the principle of artistic freedom.
The same considerations apply to academic freedom. There are funding bodies for the arts, such as the Arts Council, and for education there are the new funding councils, which will act as a cordon sanitaire. They will take specific decisions on the funding of individual institutions and on the quality of their academic courses. There is an important distinction. It is right to preserve the powers of the Secretary of State to give general direction within an overall policy on the allocation of funds to the funding councils, but he should not intervene in any way to call into question the academic freedom of universities, whether the criterion is selection of staff, the admission of students or the duration of courses.
I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has stated in a White Paper and has said himself—I happen to agree with him—that he believes strongly in the idea of introducing more two-year degree courses. I agree that there is a case for that in some circumstances. Indeed, the university of Buckingham is a pioneer. It would be wrong, however, for the Secretary of State to intervene specifically and instruct an individual university on the duration of its courses.
I hope that, when these matters are debated in Committee, the role of the Secretary of State will be made absolutely clear. The principle is enshrined in clauses 68 and 81, and hon. Members will be aware that clause 81 deals with financial mismanagement and provides that, as a last resort, the Secretary of State has the right to intervene.
If the Secretary of State or the Government are not to intervene on academic freedom, the Government and all of us in this place must be assured that the proposals for maintaining and building upon the quality of education is deeply enshrined in the Bill. There has been reference already to the Robbins era of the 1960s, when there was fear that a dramatic increase in the number of students would mean a lower quality of education. Accordingly, my

right hon. and learned Friend is right to place in the Bill procedures for maintaining quality—the highest possible standards of quality, with the minimum of bureaucracy.
There is the proposal that the quality audit unit should be enabled to go into institutions, as it were, to ensure that their mechanisms for maintaining quality are adequate. Secondly, there is the quality assessment unit, which the funding councils will appoint to help to ensure that the good quality of education in universities is upheld. Those procedures are right, but in the other place there was great debate about how independent of vested interests the units would be. That is a crucial consideration.
If my right hon. and learned Friend is saying that Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools should be independent, we should ensure that the quality assurance units are as independent as possible. Some concessions have been made, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will offer us some strong reassurances when he replies.
The Bill enhances and strengthens the prospects of improved quality and those of a much wider range of education at the higher level in universities to cater for the varying needs of a greater number of students. This education will be infinitely diverse in terms of the range of courses, the balance of teaching and research and the duration of degree courses. There will be much more flexibility. Parents and students will have greater knowledge of what the various institutions offer. There will be a range of institutions to cater for a greater variety of needs among our students, including those of mature students and those who wish to take up part-time courses, as well as those who are interested in the Open University and in distance learning. The Bill goes a long way to strengthening all these possibilities.

Mr. Richard Caborn: As all the previous speakers have declared vested interests, I shall do so as well. My constituency contains a polytechnic, part of Sheffield university and two further education colleges.
Many have welcomed the late conversion that has driven the Government to remove the binary divide between polytechnics and universities, and to create a single funding council for higher education. I am now hopeful that the polytechnics will play an important role, along with the universities and the rest of higher education, in developments not just at city but at regional level.
As the speech of the right hon. Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce) amply demonstrated, two issues still cause concern—the conditions governing the grants referred to in clause 68, and academic freedom. I hope that the Minister will deal with both. Recently, the polytechnic and the university in Sheffield have entered into a strong working partnership with the city as a whole, and that has had a regional impact as well. I believe that the economic regeneration now taking place in the area has been helped by the close working relationship of what are now the two local institutions of higher education, and by the development of technology transfer and science parks.
Further education is a subject of considerable contention. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has pointed out, we have removed one impediment—the divide between polytechnics and universities—only to institute two new boundaries which may be equally damaging, if not more so. To suggest that


the recent release of polytechnics from local authority financial control should be extended to the further education sector is, in my view, to advance a dangerous and, indeed, ignorant argument. It may, of course, have been the only argument available to the Government— albeit a weak one—when they were trying to cover up the fact that they had taken more than £2 billion from local authorities' further education budgets. As my hon. Friends have revealed, that took place during the panic about the poll tax calculations. It is all very well for the Minister to shake his head, but that is the truth, and I think that most people outside know that it is.
The Government have made their calculations for a change in the funding of at least 500 further education colleges at a time when we have only a handful of polytechnics. It shows ignorance for the Government to claim that the role of polytechnics is the same as that of further education colleges, for that is entirely untrue.
I am a product of a further education college. Having left school at 15, I served an apprenticeship in one of Sheffield's major steelworks and then, thankfully, attended the further education college. I sat on the board of governors of two such colleges for some time. I also attended Sheffield polytechnic, and I know that they are entirely different institutions, fulfilling different needs. Further education provides for local needs, and to break up the system now would be highly detrimental to the recovery that we look for in the United Kingdom.
On the board of governors were local industrialists and local trade unionists; there was also a major input from the local authority. It is no good for the Government to ask for economic regeneration and to expect a partnership to develop across the major conurbations, and then to think that some elements can be isolated—elements such as the further education colleges, which are an integral part of the training mechanism.
If we are to start upgrading schools—you will understand this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a former engineer— we must not do it in an offhand way or at arm's length. It is important to understand the role of the further education colleges, which is quite distinct from that of the polytechnics. They serve national, international and regional needs. People across the political and industrial spectrums are concerned about the direction in which the Government are pushing further education colleges.
It was interesting to note the concern expressed by Conservative Members about the community colleges. It highlighted the need for flexibility in the development of that sector of education for the over-16s, along with the need for security of funding. Security of funding must involve democratic accountability, and that, surely, must be obtained through elected bodies—local authorities.
One of our main criticisms of the further education provisions in the Bill is that they will not achieve the stated objective of a significant increase in the number of people entering higher education, or continuing in full-time education between the ages of 16 and 18. Furthermore, it is bizarre and wrong to exclude local education authorities from strategic decision making in respect of post-16 education and training. That will open unnecessary divisions between the school and college sectors.
It is incomprehensible that local authorities, which are frequently the largest employers in an area or city, should

be excluded from governing bodies. It is wrong to say that the governing bodies can contain employers, but that local authorities cannot represent their employees on those bodies. The time scale is rushed, and is likely to cause major implementation problems. The distinction, for funding purposes, between vocational and non-vocational education is artificial—as was adequately demonstrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn—and is likely to prejudice the hundreds of thousands of students who participate in non-vocational education.
The Government are wholly silent about the nature of funding mechanisms, and the Department has failed to respond to any of the detailed questions put to it by local education authorities. That has been reflected by what Conservative Members have said. The further education clauses of the Bill are being pushed through in the teeth of widespread public disquiet and opposition—witness an earlier question about responses to the White Paper. Those responses have not been published, although I understand that they have been asked for on a number of occasions both here and in the other place.

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman has made a variety of inaccurate accusations about the Government's position. Perhaps, as he is speaking on behalf of Sheffield's local education authority, he will comment on that authority's attitude to the forced bringing together of Sheffield's six colleges.

Mr. Caborn: I intend to discuss that at length, but I shall not do so in the 10 minutes that I have been allotted this evening. If the Minister will ask me the same question another time when I am not under such a constraint, I shall answer it with pleasure.
Let me deal with the general issues of education and training, and how they are dealt with in the Bill. Although there was a considerable increase between 1979 and 1988 in the number of young people in youth training schemes, the absolute number of 18, 17 and 16-year-olds pursuing full-time education increased to 131,000, 232,000 and 336,000 respectively. Those figures represent percentage rates of 18,33 and 47. That may seem a good achievement, until it is compared with that of our major competitors— for instance, the United States, Japan, Germany and Belgium. In 1988, the percentage of 16 to 18-year-olds who participated in full-time education and training in the United Kingdom was only half that achieved by our major trading partners.
Between 1979 and 1989, there was a significant increase in the number of home full-time students in higher education—from 184,000 to 250,000. That is welcome, but it really means that it will be more difficult to widen the pool that has not grown significantly —the further education pool—unless access is made much easier. More counselling and development work will be needed at the bottom of the social ladder.
Funding is of great concern to many local authorities. Only a proportion of the provision currently made by further education and tertiary colleges will be funded. Students will count for funding purposes if they follow courses leading to vocational qualifications; but the non-vocational side is very important to inner cities. It is no good for the Government to come to the House and complain about riots after they have neglected those matters in the Bill.

Sir Robert Rhodes James: I hope that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), with whom I have much in common, will forgive me if I do not reply to his speech. This is almost certainly the last occasion on which I shall have the privilege of addressing the House of Commons. Perhaps it is appropriate that it should be on the subject of higher and further education.
We should not dwell on the past or on the disagreements that I have had with my right hon. and hon. Friends. I should like to concentrate on the Bill and on the future. Although I found myself in overwhelming agreement with the Bill as it was first introduced, certain sections of it were rightly amended by the Lords. The fact that the Lords made those amendments and that the Government will agree to them means that I shall support the Bill wholeheartedly.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State repeated the differentiation between applied and pure research. There is no differentiation between pure and applied research. How could we have found the anti-diphtheria drug, penicillin, insulin or histamine without pure research? They were the results of pure research. The genius of certain people in the past, such as Cavendish, Wellcome and others, was that they invested in pure research on the offchance that something commercial would come of it.
I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that the key problem—I admit that it is a difficult one—relates to the powers of the Secretary of State and the Government on the one hand, and to the doctrine of university autonomy on the other. I accept that the latter doctrine was carried one stage too far. Self-government and autonomy in higher education are enormously important, but the taxpayer and the Government also have some responsibilities.
When I had some responsibility for such matters, I was struck by the extraordinary variety of our institutions. I became convinced that central Government should have much great influence, but not to the detriment of the individuality and initiative of different institutions. It is a question of balance, and it is difficult. However, I believe that the Government have accepted that, and that the Bill represents the degree of that balance.
I warmly welcome the fact that so many excellent polytechnics, especially Anglia, will receive university status. I congratulate the Ministers who were principally involved in that.
Although it is not the dominant purpose of this Bill, I hope that the House will forgive me if I refer briefly to problems of finance, and especially to student finances. I cannot refer to academic salaries because I have a potential interest. The funding of higher education, and especially of its students, raises a profound problem, to which neither party has addressed itself seriously. They have produced palliatives and promises, but not answers.
Perhaps such matters should be removed from the sphere of party politics and, indeed, from Government. I am not suggesting another Robbins inquiry or another royal commission, but perhaps the Secretary of State and the Government should set up an advisory committee comprising people who understand and are deeply involved in higher education, to advise them not on tactics but on strategy and to look forward to the next five or 10 years. I am deeply concerned, for example, about the way

in which we finance research. It is a question not of money but of the allocation of the money and the criteria that are used. The problem applies to all the research councils; I do not want to concentrate on any particular one. Huge sums are spent—some usefully, some not—but nobody is in a position to judge whether the money has been spent properly. I suggest that an advisory body—not the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, but one that does not have a special interest—could advise on strategy.
In the 25 years that I have served in the House, I have endeavoured to outline my concerns to it. I shall now return to academic life; to scholarship; to the love of learning for its own sake, which I believe is still the dominant purpose of higher education; to the excitement of a new generation eager to learn; to the sheer fun of education, which people sometimes forget; and to the joy of seeing one's students do well and to the sadness of sometimes seeing them not do as well as one would wish.
Education, which politicians talk about as something political, is a personal matter. It is the relationship between the teacher who wants to teach and someone who wants to learn, and it is precious. The teacher rejoices at every pupil triumph and mourns at every failure. There is a glow about the glory of true education which is impossible to describe. I wish that the House, when it stops arguing about whether Conservative policies are better than Labour or Liberal Democrat policies, would remember that the true lure of higher education is the love of learning for its own sake. Our job is to try to finance and to encourage that.

Mr. Huw Edwards: It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir R. Rhodes James), who has given 25 years' distinguished service to the House and has had a distinguished career in international relations and scholarship. I am sure that we all wish him well as he renews his distinguished academic career on leaving the House.
It is also a great privilege for me to speak in the debate because prior to being elected to the House I was a lecturer. I have been a student at Manchester polytechnic and the University of York and a lecturer in polytechnics and in the university in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn).
I welcome most of the higher education provisions in the Bill, such as the removal of the binary divide. The binary divide in higher education has been similar to the unfair distinction that used to exist between grammar and secondary modern schools. I hope that we resist all opportunities to reintroduce that distinction while we remove those in higher education.
If there is to be parity of title between the polytechnics and the universities, I hope that we shall also ensure parity and equality in resources. I am pleased that the last institution in which I worked, Brighton polytechnic, will become the University of Brighton. I wish it and all my former colleagues there the very best for the future.
I am concerned that some of the current inequalities between polytechnics and universities will not be removed as we enter this new era in which polytechnics and universities have the same title. I trust that, when polytechnics become universities, there will be positive action to equalise resources and to ensure that teaching facilities in polytechnics can be improved, and that the


former universities can learn some lessons from the polytechnics. I hope that there will be improved library and research facilities and improved student residential provision in the polytechnics.
One of my hopes for the new era is that some of the best in the polytechnics will be transferred to the universities and some of the best in the universities will be transferred to the polytechnics. That will create opportunities for former polytechnic staff to engage in research and have the facilities and resources to do so.
I hope that in the new era we shall see education for education's sake and get away from the obsession with entrepreneurism which has dogged academic life in recent years. I know the skills as lecturers that many of my former colleagues had. They were lecturers, not entrepreneurs. As a lecturer I did not mind how many students I taught, but I did not want to be responsible for the administrative arrangements for bringing them into the college in the first place. We were told, "Go out and sell your courses." We could have sold many rather cheap packages.
When I left the polytechnic last year, I was anxious about what I saw as the "pile them in and teach them cheap" philosophy. Although we welcome the increase in educational opportunities in the past 10 years, there is some concern that by bringing students in at any price we devalued the level of education that we could give them. It is not possible to teach students adequately at degree level when seminar groups have 20 people in them or the course numbers increase but the number of books does not increase commensurately to resource those courses.
Let us go back to an education ethos in which students are regarded as a national asset and an investment and not simply as units of income. It causes anxiety to all of us that the expansion in higher education in the past 10 years has been characterised by increasing student hardship and poverty. There has been an attitude of, "Bring them in, but never mind about the financial hardships that many students may face." The right hon. Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce) said that Britain had lower drop-out rates than many other countries. I fear that the drop-out rate might increase as students decide that they cannot afford to continue or, if there is a parental contribution, parents decide that they cannot afford it.
The Bill also contains provisions for further and adult education. All Opposition Members are convinced that the poll tax inspired the further education provisions and that they were nothing to do with a love of education for its own sake. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) paid tribute to the unsung success of the further education colleges. I recently visited Newport college of further education. I was impressed by the number of access courses that it ran. The college takes students who would never have dreamed of going on to higher education and gives them the opportunity to obtain a degree.
It is important that we do not measure success merely in terms of the number of good degree results—the number of 2:1s or firsts. For people who never imagined getting a degree, a third-class degree is a tremendous educational attainment. I am worried about the obsession with minimising the number of people who receive lower class degrees.
There is widespread anxiety about adult education. This evening, Ministers have tried to give reassurances that adult education will not be jeopardised. That is not the view held by anyone who benefits from adult education, administers adult education or teaches in adult education. Both Opposition and Conservative Members have been lobbied vigorously by organisations connected with adult education. I pay tribute to the local education centres in my constituency and to the women's institutes, the Workers Educational Association and the Hill residential college, Abergavenny, which is a unique institution in Wales providing short-term residential education for adults, many of whom are retired, most of whom are women and most of whom see no distinction between vocational, non-vocational and leisure education. Indeed, the introduction of the word "leisure" makes the distinction even more frivolous.
I hope that the Bill will result in secure funding for adult education and the residential educational colleges. The people who benefit from adult education have largely completed their vocation. In pre-retirement, early retirement and retirement they want to study for the pure sake of learning subjects which they did not need in their working lives.
I conclude by echoing the words of the hon. Member for Cambridge. He said that there was a glow about the glory of true education. I pay tribute to all the people who were involved in education in the 1980s, when it was an unfashionable profession. People taught in higher education and polytechnics and gave references to students who went into the City and earned far more than the lecturers who had trained them for the job. That devaluation and the denigration of people involved in education were worrying. I repeat: let us go back to the time when we could see that glow about the glory of true education.

Mr. James Pawsey: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards). He said that he was worried about degree-level teaching and mentioned the shortage of books. But, despite that, he certainly seemed able to consider the devalued A-levels proposed by his hon. Friends. They talk about moving away from the three-subject A-level to a five-subject A-level.

Mr. Edwards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pawsey: I will give way later. The hon. Gentleman seemed happy with the idea of a devalued A-level—

Mr. Edwards: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I did not say anything about A-levels and certainly did not advocate devaluing them.

Mr. Pawsey: Exactly.

Mr. Edwards: Then it is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to infer that I believe that they should be devalued.

Mr. Pawsey: With respect, the fact that the hon. Gentleman did not refer to A-levels is a clear indication that he accepts the proposal of his hon. Friends, who argue the case for a five-subject A-level. To increase the number of subjects to five would clearly devalue the entrance to our universities requirements.


The proposals in the Bill give colleges greater freedom and cut the apron strings that secure them to the local education authorities. The Bill reduces the amount of bureaucracy and relieves principals of FE colleges the requirement to deal with bureaucratic budgeting rounds every year and to justify their budget to faceless officials in shire halls.
The Bill will enable the colleges to make a faster response to the requirements of their students and of local employers. It will help to bridge the criticism that education and industry are separate entities, each operating in its own intellectual vacuum. We all know that there is a wealth of talent in the colleges of further education. There is talent to be found in the staff room and talent to be found in the classrooms. The Bill helps to release that talent and broadens the vision. It does for the colleges of further education what the 1989 legislation did for the polytechnics.
An indication of polytechnics' success is the substantial increase in their student numbers. Indeed, the great expansion in student numbers comes from the polytechnics rather than from the universities. While much has been achieved in schools and in advanced education in the past three or four years, FE has been something of a Cinderella. We have not done enough for young people who leave school at 16 or for adults who, for whatever reason, require additional training or education. This legislation undoubtedly helps to remedy that defect.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said, 60 per cent. of 16-year-olds in England participate in further education. Twelve years ago it was 41 per cent. Further education colleges take about 360,000 full-time students, 700,000 part-time day students and 700,000 part-time evening students. Those are spread over about 450 institutions.

Mr. Fatchett: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the figure that he quoted includes all those youngsters on youth training schemes, only 25 per cent. of whom will gain a qualification? Also, the figure that he quoted is not the real international comparison but the figure for 16-year-olds. We shall be considering 16 to 18-year-olds and all those in full-time education, and that is the real comparison.

Mr. Pawsey: I do not think that there is any difference of opinion between us. It is intended in the Bill for the new further education funding councils to be in place on 1 April next year to prepare for the transfer of colleges from local authority control. It is that date which gives urgency to the legislation. No doubt that will be considered later this evening. Clearly, that is why it is necessary to introduce a timetable motion later tonight.
The further education funding council for England will have a membership of between 12 and 15 and they will be appointed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. They will be drawn from people with experience in education, including those with expertise in administration. There will also be members from business and industry. I have no doubt that colleges of further education will widely welcome those proposals, for they view them—as we Conservative Members view them—as a change necessary to improve further education and to bring it in line with modern practice and thinking.
The second part of the Bill deals with advanced education. Here it is worth remembering that we are

catering for a much-expanded sector as a result of the Government's efforts. When we came to office, only one in eight of the target group were in advanced education. Today, the figure is one in four, and it is moving towards one in three. It is the Government's intention to continue that admirable process. The target of one in three by the turn of the century, which we have set for ourselves, will certainly be achieved. That clearly underlines our commitment and our determination to improve the quality and standard of state education for all our people.
I welcome the ending of the binary line. It was always an artificial distinction, separating the universities and polytechnics. In some ways, the old regime protected those universities which were not quite in the first rank and held back polytechnics which enjoyed a substantial and justifiable reputation for learning. I am pleased that the polytechnics can now incorporate the title "university". It will certainly be a great help to them abroad, where there is less understanding of the word "polytechnic".
The Bill introduces a single funding mechanism for universities, polytechnics and colleges of higher education through the higher education funding councils for England and for Wales. The new councils will be in operation from April 1993 and that tight schedule again helps to underline the reason why it is necessary to get this legislation on the statute book with the minimum delay.
The House will recall that under the Bill the Council for National Academic Awards will be closed—the first time that any degree-awarding body has been dissolved. Recently, I met its chief executive, Malcolm Frazer, and we discussed how the 300,000 students on courses under its control would manage under the new proposals. I was pleased to receive an assurance from Malcolm Frazer that no students will be disadvantaged by the changes. We also discussed the question of records. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will wish to take note of this issue when responding to the debate. Clearly, if a student loses his degree certificate, he will require another. I was pleased to learn that arrangements have been made between the CNAA and the Open University for the latter to hold all the appropriate records and to be in a position to offer duplicate certificates. Those are not unimportant safeguards.
I welcome the proposal to establish a quality assessment unit within each funding council. That will maintain good practice and monitor, for example, performance indicators and changing student profiles. The units should also ensure that links with business, industry and education do not deteriorate. The institutions will establish a quality audit unit and some of its members will be drawn from business and industry, as well as from the academic world. Quality assessments and quality audit will safeguard the quality of degrees and ensure that standards do not slip.
The Government's proposals in the Bill will bring substantial benefits to the nation—benefits to students, to employers and to the community at large. The greater freedom being given to colleges of further education will enable principals and staff to display even more inventiveness in courses.
There has already been a massive expansion in the number of people attending polytechnics, and there will be a massive expansion in those attending colleges of further education, which will be of benefit not only to the nation's work force but to those who seek learning for its own sake,


whether as a leisure pursuit or for any other reason, which touches on the issue mentioned earlier by Opposition Members.
I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion simply by saying that I hope that the Bill will soon be on the statute book, where it will be of singular benefit to the British people.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I thought that when the Secretary of State introduced the Bill he gave us a demonstration of his usual bull-at-a-gate tactics in respect of yet another field of education into which he is rushing to impose change.
With the claim of simplifying, he is creating a much more complicated structure. In the name of eliminating distinctions, he is creating new ones. That restless process of change is typical of his approach. He introduced it first in the health service, transferred it to secondary education, and is now transferring it to further and higher education. In that process of change, he is not making any allowance for the simple fact that change itself has a cost. Indeed, change is expensive to introduce. Unless he increases spending to allow for the costs of that change, it will fail.
Here we are, in the last dying days in the life of the Government, rushing through a major change in the system with inadequate consultation. The Secretary of State has not demonstrated to us the evidence—the representations from local authorities—on which the change was based. He has not told us what arguments they offered against it. The Bill is being rushed through with a guillotine to follow and with no time to consider it. It is being imposed as the Government go out—with a twilight already shining on their shoulders. The Bill will throw higher and further education into another mess, just another achievement of the bull-at-a-gate Secretary of State in that area.
What I have said does not obviate the need for change, but change has to be managed, has to be carried through by a process of consultation, and has to be financed. That is the danger of the changes which have been introduced by the Government.
My main argument is on the effects that the Bill will have on a service which we are very proud of in Humberside—the Humberside adult education service. I wanted to intervene when the Secretary of State spoke, but unfortunately I could not. We are very proud of that service. It has 100,000 enrolments and 40,000 students, and it provides a valuable service, siphoning people into education who would otherwise drop out or would not be attracted to it, because it provides education where they live—in the village hall, and schools in the locality, in villages and towns, in the main using the facilities of secondary schools.
Although the service provides both vocational and non-vocational training—the Government have created a contemptuous distinction between the two—it siphons people from one to the other.

Mr. Eggar: Since the hon. Gentleman is making all sorts of wild allegations without the advantage of his television researcher, perhaps he could tell us where that division appears in the Bill.

Mr. Mitchell: It is the Government's attitude that non-vocational education is somehow unworthy and should be financed in a different fashion. This money is for the important aspects of education and all the rest is fit for the local authorities—that is the Government's attitude.

Mr. Fatchett: It is in schedule 2.

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is correct—it is in schedule 2—and I shall come to that in a minute.
The Government have created that distinction, and it is an artificial one, because people who enter the adult education service in Humberside move from one type of education to the other. After being attracted in, they develop their expertise, and their interest in education is stimulated. They grow. Because it is a comprehensive service, it can siphon them from one aspect to the other and allow them to develop their interest and improve their education. That is an important service.
Adult education represents an important, countrywide service. It is now threatened because 50 per cent. of its work will effectively be taken from it. That work is now to be eligible for application for funds from the funding council, and will not be paid for by the local authority. That means that there is a great danger of splitting the work provided right down the middle. If that happens, the comprehensive service that has been maintained on Humberside cannot be sustained. There will be certainty about obtaining one half of its funding, but uncertainty about the other half. Therefore, that comprehensive service, which maintains facilities for vocational and non-vocational education, will go by the board. That is the danger we face.
I accept that the local authority funding is not ring-fenced, but I am certain that a Labour authority in Humberside will want to maintain services for the benefit of the people. The problem is whether the provision of education in literacy, numeracy and vocational training, which will be transferred to the funding council for resources, will be able to survive.
I know that it is proposed that the adult education service can use a college as a type of post office for the means of applying to the funding council. That is a ludicrous arrangement, partly because the adult education service is larger than any of the colleges. That service provides education for more students than those provided for by several colleges put together. Adult education provides a more comprehensive service than that offered by the colleges, but those colleges will be competing with it. The colleges will not be interested in maintaining adult education services in rural areas, and that is so important because people will have to come to study on campus. In that sense, the colleges are competitors.
If the adult education service in a particular area does not get a college to support its application to the funding council, even though such colleges will probably cater for a smaller number of students and will therefore be less important than the adult education service, the Secretary of State has said that it can appeal to him. I am not sure what appeals to the Secretary of State, but such an appeal procedure adds to the uncertainty. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to maintain a comprehensive adult education service unless we have some guarantee and an arrangement whereby it can have direct access to the funding council.
The power to apply to a funding council could be defined in terms of the size of that adult education


provision. Why not define the adult education service in terms of the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988? That Act defined a college as one with 400 full-time equivalents and at least one full-time student. That would give the adult education service the ability to apply directly to a funding council. Unless it has that direct ability, it will suffer. Uncertainty will abound, and it will be difficult to maintain the comprehensive service of which we are so proud in Humberside.
It is also important to consider the dangers posed by the remoteness of the funding council. I know that regional advisory bodies will be established, but we need regional funding councils made up of representatives from the local authorities. Those people would know about the local needs. That is essential. A remote national body will change the system constantly, whatever the fashion is in education, and it will be remote from the needs of local areas. That means that the council will not allow for diversity, which is another valuable part of the education system. We must consider that threat.
Labour colleges and long-term residential colleges, such as Ruskin and Northern, are worried about their role as a vital safety net. Those colleges allow those who develop their interests in education late on to be drawn into the education system. The achievements of those colleges are enormous; I cannot speak highly enough of Ruskin and Northern colleges, the two that I know best. Their achievements are in danger unless there is some specific recognition and entrenchment of their role in the Bill. Those institutions should be added to the existing list. The adult bursary scheme should be maintained, because it is essential to defend and advance it. It allows people to come into education late on—an essential safety net in society.
I hope that the Minister will heed the pleas of the adult education service, the colleges and the long-term residential colleges for the establishment of a funding council that appreciates and understands their needs and is geographically closer to them.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: It is right that, at the outset, I should declare an interest. For many years, I have been a member of the council of one university and on the court of another. My law firm also acts for a number of institutions in higher and further education.
I had the privilege of serving on the Committee on the Education Reform Bill. That Bill is already seen as one of the milestones of educational development, and that will become increasingly apparent in the years to come. It was visionary, but I remember clearly that the Opposition attacked and criticised every aspect of its provisions only to find that, within a year or two, they had become part of the accepted wisdom of the education world. It began the process of overturning some of the discredited dogmas which had bedevilled education for more than 20 years.
It is right to consider the polytechnics first, because they have made such outstanding progress since they were liberated from the control of local authorities. The improved participation rates in higher education from one in eight in 1979 to one in four now and moving towards one in three, the flexibility which polytechnics have brought to courses, particularly through the modular method of studying and the significant success of the graduate output rate, which is just as crucial as the number of people starting in higher education, are all features of

the growing development and maturity that the polytechnics have brought to our higher education system. That goes alongside the splendid progress already achieved by universities.
The polytechnics have shown that any benefits which resulted from local education authority participation and control in their affairs are far outweighed by the benefits that result from independence. It is clearly time to build upon that progress, to abolish the binary line and to introduce a coherent structure for funding teaching and research across the higher education sector.
If that is true of polytechnics, it is equally true of further education colleges. It is time for those colleges to be given the chance to make similar progress. I am concerned at the stories from a number of colleges about attempts at asset-stripping by LEAs in the final months of their control. They are not just stripping those colleges of their land and buildings, but reducing funding to them in anticipation of those colleges moving out of their control next year. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say something about the protection that he intends to apply to ensure that those colleges, when they emerge free from LEA control, will emerge with their proper share of assets and the revenues to which they are entitled.
My right hon. and learned Friend spoke of the importance of sixth forms and his desire to enhance their future role. My constituency consists mainly of towns and villages on the outskirts of the city of Leeds, and the sixth forms in the local comprehensive schools are important. Many colleagues will recall the bitter battle that was fought over two years when Leeds council sought to abolish our sixth forms. It was only the intervention of the then Secretary of State and, in particular, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), which prevented it.
Obviously, we are concerned that the LEA might threaten those sixth forms again, and I should be interested to learn now or in Committee exactly what my right hon. and learned Friend plans to do to give additional protection for the status of sixth forms. In areas such as mine, schools plan, whether under the local management of schools, or possibly through grant-maintained status, to become more like community colleges. They want to provide enhanced services for the local communities.
I should like to know from the Minister how grant-maintained status will affect the ability of those schools to offer courses to the local community and whether they will be in a better or worse position as grant-maintained schools than they would be as part of an LEA. I hope that the result will be neutral as between the two. Sixth forms are a vital ingredient of schools in rural communities, and the protection that my right hon. and learned Friend announced for them will be very welcome indeed.
Another area of concern, touching the earlier debate about university drop-out rates, arises from what happened at the end of last year in a number of local authorities, Leeds being one of the worst. Mandatory grants to students were not delivered on time. Eight weeks into the term, over 40 per cent. of students from Leeds entitled to mandatory grants still had not received them. Some did not receive them until the first term of the year was over. That was totally unacceptable.


I feel for those students when I recall when I went to university for the first time. Pressures are bound to build up. The thought that one must face those pressures while having to worry where the money to which one is entitled may be—how one will manage one's affairs without that money—is a horrifying prospect. Should there be a repetition of what happened last year in any local authorities, my right hon. and learned Friend will have to consider measures to remove the administration of mandatory grants from LEAs.
In that context, LEAs represent only a post box for funds from the Department of Education and Science. If LEAs cannot deliver that service effectively, he should provide alternatives, and I shall tonight be tabling amendments to the Bill to give my right hon. and learned Friend power to do that. After all, we have organisations such as the Student Loan Company which are building up effective computer databases on the loan aspect. Such a company would be capable of delivering mandatory grants in addition to performing its other tasks. Indeed, we might save much duplication and cost by using one system.
There has been much talk about education for its own sake or education for vocational training. The two are not incompatible. A good education system should have the widest possible availability for as many people as possible. Students who go into the system should be free to make up their own minds about what benefits they wish to take from it. Some will wish to be highly vocational, others will not.
I had an interesting insight into the value of what we have in Britain when, a few weeks ago, I attended a conference organised in London by Toshiba International Foundation. It was looking at the educational demands on a developed society by the turn of the century and trying to predict what changes would be needed. The conclusion of some eminent speakers, including the dean of Tokyo university and other highly distinguished academics, was that the great hallmark of success in the future would be the ability of a nation to handle complex information in large quantities and to apply it to a whole range of activities.
Those Japanese academics were looking enviously at our education system; while undoubtedly they can produce engineers in large numbers, what they found attractive about our system was the flexibility of mind that it produced, of young people able to turn their minds to a variety of applications and retrain relatively easily as technologies developed.
Many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, so I will not make other points that I would otherwise have made. Our intention must be to make higher and further education available to as many people as possible. It must be to ensure that all, whatever their ages, are able to return to the education and training system and take from it the things they need, be they vocational or just for interest.
The Bill will mark another important milestone down the road that we took with the Education Reform Act. I hope that we shall organise our affairs in a way that will ensure that it becomes law before the general election. An enormous amount of work has already been done in the polytechnics and colleges in preparation for their change of status. Much momentum has built up, and if that were slowed down because of the need to start the whole process

again after the election, we shall have lost a year that we can ill afford. I commend the Bill and hope that it will reach the statute book as rapidly as possible.

Dr. Ashok Kumar: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir R. Rhodes James) for his contribution and I regret that he is no longer in his place. I confess to have been reading his books since I was a school boy. I have deep respect for his sincere views and wish him well in his love of learning and in his new post.
I shall adduce some arguments on the proposed structure for further education arising out of part I of the Bill. I welcome the aims and aspirations of the measure, but deeply disagree with the methods proposed. I shall highlight only a few aspects of the Bill, and I speak as one who has had long experience of further and higher education—first, at the receiving end, as a student, and then as the former chairman of governors of one of the largest colleges in Cleveland, the Longlands college of further education. Under the existing further education structure, that college, with the support of a totally dedicated and hard-working staff, has pioneered innovative and enterprising programmes of training and education in an area which has consistently experienced some of the highest unemployment in mainland Britain.
The Bill is an attempt to emasculate and undermine community and local input into our colleges. If it is passed, there will be another major reduction in the powers and responsibilities of LEAs and the virtual eradication of local staff or non-private sector representation on governing bodies, with no local ability to influence the direction and content of the work carried out in our colleges.
In the name of liberation from local government oversight and administration, as the Secretary of State put it, the Government are intent on installing a system of funding, appointment, direction and control that is positively Napoleonic in content. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's reserve powers will be wide ranging and immense.
The Secretary of State talked about liberating further education colleges from local authority control. Without any representation on governing bodies or any role in quality assurance, the vast accumulation of local knowledge will be squandered. Experience and expertise will be lost and local democratic accountability removed.
If the Bill is enacted, we shall see the total fragmentation of responsibilities in the post-16 sector and in adult education generally. There will be needless competition, rivalry and duplication of effort between local colleges, LEAs, the proposed national councils and free-standing, ostensibly independent, grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges.
There is no proposal as yet for the Secretary of State to set up any form of national co-ordinating body or forum at which the different interests may meet and debate. There is no provision for cross-representation between planning bodies and the governing bodies of colleges. That is a recipe for utter confusion, a waste of scarce resources and a breeding ground for futile rivalries.
The Bill is another sad illustration of the hatred and contempt with which the Government view any institutions that are locally controlled and managed. My hon. Friends and I are totally opposed to the continuing


erosion of local democratic accountability for the delivery of such vital services. We utterly oppose the concentration of power at the centre and the spreading and menacing influence of appointed agencies—often run by the Conservative party and its central office—to manage institutions on a day-to-day basis.
Let us examine the facts, including the damage that narrow and ill-thought-out proposals could have on our future. At present, only one third of the 2·8 million 16 to 18-year-olds are in full-time further education. A further 16 per cent. are undertaking full-time YTS training and work experience, while others are attending part-time or evening classes. One third of our youngsters are receiving no education or training. They are unemployed or in the twilight world of dead-end—often temporary or casual—work. Furthermore, those in full-time further education are often participating in a system that, under the prevailing ideology and political stewardship of the Government, is open to the charge of being divisive.
All too often, A-levels are seen as the only pathway to success, forcing the academically able into specialisations that often do not match the country's real needs. The majority of FE students become the recipients of a vocational training system that does not measure up to the standards set by other nations in the European Community—our direct competitors in the coming decade. The Bill will not liberate those students. The competition that it will unleash between local colleges will almost certainly result in local colleges going under, or being forced to close or merge.
The financial controls and financial regime that the Secretary of State will impose will mean that "standalone" projects based within colleges will be unable to receive funding and thus may be forced to close. I was involved in Cleveland in setting up one such project relating to the local chemistry industry at the college of which I was chair of governors. There is no guarantee that such innovative projects will be allowed to survive under a rigid, centrally directed further education structure. The knowledge of essential local circumstances that allows a local education authority or training and enterprise council to support an innovative project will be absent, and it cannot he replaced.
Some aspects of the Bill have not been sufficiently worked out. The splitting of vocational and leisure interest courses worries me. What may be a "leisure course" to narrow-minded Ministers can often appear to those at the chalk face as an essential complement to vocational training. A young man or woman studying engineering practice may regard a better command of English as beneficial to his or her ability to convey complex technical matters to someone in his or her firm or to the firm's customers.
I am aware that LEAs will be left with the funding of so-called "leisure courses", although it is not yet clear what funding the Government will provide to local authorities for those courses. It may be argued that local authorities will fund those courses, but in my area we have the spectacle of poll-tax-capped councils having to cut their core services and being unable to expand in other directions. The acquisition of basic skills such as literacy and numeracy must be regarded as essential vocational skills and I cannot stress highly enough the fact that they must be fully included in the funding arrangements.
I wish to highlight clauses 4 and 11, which deal with special educational needs and people with learning

difficulties. The formulation of those clauses is weaker than any existing duty of LEAs under the Education Act 1981 and the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. There is no provision for an independent review of the requirements of individuals or for rights of appeal against the level or quality of support available for students with special education needs. The duty extends only to full-time students in the 16 to 19 age group. It is apparent that there is no guarantee for older or part-time students with learning difficulties.
The Bill does not even begin to deal with the real issues of training and further education for 16 to 19-year-olds. We are only weeks away from a general election, after which a new Labour Government must begin the task of facing up to the responsibility of tackling those issues. We have a unique opportunity to enhance and raise the standards of educational provision for over-16s. By 1994, as a result of demographic movements, there will be 500,000 youngsters between the ages of 16 and 19.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has run out of time.

Sir John Farr: I welcome this opportunity of contributing to this stage of the debate, and I am well aware that there are likely to be further opportunities after 10 o'clock.
It is important to my constituents and me that I should recognise the kindness of my hon. Friend the Minister of State in seeing delegations from my part of the world on two or three occasions. The most recent was last week, when a senior team discussed the implications of ABE—adult basic education—ESL—English as a second language—and community further education. The first time that we saw the Minister of State he was impressed because I gave him an amendment to the Bill. That was before Christmas, and the Minister seemed to be inclined to accept it. The first time that a few hon. Friends and I saw the Minister he told us to come back with some experts so that they could argue with his experts to sort out the matter. That is what happened, and last week we were lucky enough to have a good discussion with all the top people on both sides.
I then tried unsuccessfully to explain to the Minister of State why some clauses are totally unacceptable to some of my constituents. When my right hon. and learned Friend would not give way to me earlier on, I wished to say that his suggestion that clause 6 was suitable and wholly admirable had been considered by my constituents. Their views were made known to us last week and we had a subsequent meeting in Leicestershire. For reasons that I fully support, the amendment suggests that the safeguards in clause 6 are inadequate.
Some hon. Members will be lucky enough to be on the Standing Committee. If I am on it, or if any of my hon. Friends from the same county are on it, I am sure that we shall table that particular amendment to clause 5. We have been so awkward, from the point of view of the Whips, because clause 5 is inadequate unless it includes a couple of lines to the effect that the further education funding councils will take account of existing quality providers, as listed under schedule 2. It is a simple amendment. The first time that I suggested it to the Minister he seemed impressed, but last time he seemed less impressed. Therefore, nothing in my consultations with my hon.


Friends has shown that we should do other than press the amendment in Committee or on Report. It does not alter the character of the Bill, which we all welcome as an improvement to community and further education. It simply recognises that some parts of the world have reached a standard that my hon. Friend can only envisage for other parts of the country.
The Minister need not take my word for it. HMI carried out a detailed and exhaustive examination of Leicester's ABE recently. As hon. Members know, when HMI visits, it tears the institution to bits and takes it apart at the seams. HMI went through the Leicester adult basic education structure. I have with me the full report, but time will not permit to read it now. It is full of admiration for the work of Leicestershire ABE.
The report makes particular reference to the one-for-one education in the home as of right. I need not explain why that is necessary. Many perfectly normal people do not want to learn publicly. For example, pensioners may not want to show that they cannot spell. They may not be 100 per cent. fit physically, but they are alert mentally and often self-improvement is the only thing that keeps them alive. That is what ABE is all about.
I can refer only briefly to the report. It gives many good examples of how ABE is carried out and praises the ABE service in Leicestershire. The conclusion is:
Leicestershire has established a strong foundation of provision. It is now timely to consider building on this foundation.
That is not what I say; it is what HMI advised the Secretary of State. With great respect, how dare he ignore that sort of advice about a service that has been taken apart and been seen to be serving the country almost beyond comparison.
The Secretary of State is not in ignorance. He has been told about the report by the Minister of State. As a result of the report and the recommendation that I have just quoted, the Leicestershire ABE service was expanded. All the recommendations in this two-page report have been put into effect. Leicestershire is one of the most progressive ABE providers in the country and it is recognised as such both locally and nationally.
As a result of the report, 13 half-time posts have been turned into full-time posts, a deputy county co-ordinator has been created, its class provision has been greatly increased and a number of its ABE bases have been upgraded. To lose this local, student-centred, urban-rural co-ordinated, well resourced, efficient service with highly trained, well motivated, dedicated staff can be in no one's interest, least of all the adult students for whom it caters.
The time for speeches is limited now, but after 10 o'clock it will be slightly longer, so some of my choice comments can wait until then, but I should like to say a word about community further education. My delegation came from all parts of the county of Leicester. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) came with a delegation of experts from the county and I brought a few experts. We also dealt with further education. I brought Mike Lee, the vice-principal of Welland Park community college in Market Harborough. He had been in correspondence with me for a long time. We have been extending successive invitations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and others to visit us.

I must conclude now as I have run out of time, but I hope possibly to resume my speech after 10 o'clock.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: I will not follow the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) on the Leicestershire question, but I am sure that the Secretary of State will, indeed, make his visit before the election.
I should like to remark on the particularly moving speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir R. Rhodes James). He said that he was returning to learning for its own sake and for the love of learning. I am certain that his contribution, as with the contribution of many other scholars, is not learning for its own sake because that learning also enriches language and the whole community. It has always been a pleasure to have him in the House during education debates. I hope that he reads the tributes to him from this side of the House as well as from his own side.
I shall deal with the aspects of the Bill that concern my favourite Department of state, the Welsh Office. The Bill represents the latest and final step in the devolution of education policy and administration to the Welsh Office. We now have in place a fully devolved education system. Last year training was devolved and now we have the further education funding council for Wales and the higher education funding council for Wales. I was pleased at the appointment of Professor John Andrews as the joint chief executive of both councils. We look forward to the appointment and functioning of the shadow council.
The official Opposition criticised the FE changes as a form of centralisation. Even from the Welsh perspective it can be argued that to transfer the 30 FE colleges to a body that is accountable to the Welsh Office rather than to have them as part of local government is a form of centralisation. I do not share that view. I see this as creating opportunity for a relatively small-scale system to be treated as one system for planning purposes. Nevertheless, I share some of the concerns expressed about the effect of that on the adult education component. Again, my experience of the FE sector is that already FE colleges are taking funding from different agencies, not least from the training and enterprise councils and, previously, the Manpower Services Commission, where we had many of the most effective innovations in higher education.
In particular, I welcome the commitment in schedule 2 to Welsh medium teaching and to Welsh language literacy. The further education funding council will certainly want to pursue the work that has already been undertaken by the Welsh adult education committee and the Welsh Language Education Development Committee.
It is high time that in classifying education policy we moved away from these artificial distinctions between secondary education, further education, higher education and adult and continuing education. I came to the House from adult education via higher education and for me life is all about education. Education must necessarily include training. I was supportive of the earlier parts of the Secretary of State's speech in which he mentioned the need to develop an education system that was life-long based and able to tackle the present social changes. This provides


us with an opportunity for greater co-operation between the TECs, the training component of education, and the further education sector.
I welcome the higher education funding council for Wales. On this occasion I am wearing one version of the university of Wales tie—not the version favoured by the Leader of the Opposition because it is important that we should display diversity.
I am pleased to see the university of Wales being devolved and I certainly do not share the concerns expressed by some in the universities that the devolution of the university to the Welsh Office will give rise to problems in the internal structure of colleges, or the assertion that every higher education institution in Wales should come into some kind of relationship with the university. I believe that there was a strong argument before the devolution that it was important to maintain the university of Wales as a federal institution. If there are arguments now for maintaining the federal structure, they have to be won by that federal structure proving that it is the best way of providing common services to constituent institutions. We have to look not just to the university but to the other institutions of higher education in Wales. They are all now equal partners. There may be an argument, in that context, for moving away from a strong federal structure, as that would tend to dominate the rest of our education within Wales.
The old argument that it is a national university and therefore a national institution and thus needs to be maintained is not one that I would pursue. After all, the Welsh Office is our prime national institution and now it is in charge of our funding. Soon the autonomous council will be administering that funding on the basis of objective standards, and there is not a case, in my view, for a duplication of allocation between the funding council and a joint university structure.
I am also pleased to see reference in the Bill to the position of the Open University. My reading of clause 62(b) is that both funding councils will be able to fund the OU, which means that in the context of Wales the OU can receive additional funding for its operation within Wales. I speak as a former part-time member of its staff in Wales. The OU will be able to receive funding from the higher education funding council of Wales to augment its activities there.
I also have concern, of course, about the position of a college in my own constituency, also an institution in which I once taught. It is important that we have a guaranteed role for such institutions within our reorganised HE and FE sector.
I want to make certain that when we debate the Bill in detail we shall be able to do something about research funding in Wales. Many of us are concerned that, over the years, the UFC, although it has its own scheme for the allocation of research funding, has not sufficiently looked to the distribution within the nations and regions of the United Kingdom of its research funding. I hope that there will be a sufficient funding base for the new funding councils and that they will he able to look at the need for a broad profile of research throughout the higher education institutions which they fund.
When we consider the Bill in Committee we shall need to look in detail at the representation on both the equality body and the funding councils. The major consumers of education are its users and its student body. It is very important that we follow some of the debates that are

already taking place in the other place about representation of the student body on the higher education structures.
The Bill represents a positive move forward in the structuring of Welsh education. I cannot share some of the concerns expressed in various parts of the House, certainly as far as Wales is concerned. My anxiety has always been, ever since I came into the House, to see the development of a strong, autonomous education system within Wales. My first Second Reading speech was on education, when I called for a comprehensive over-16 education system in Wales. I was at that time trying to persuade the then Labour Government that it should introduce such a system. I find myself making what I assume is my last speech in a Second Reading debate on education congratulating a Conservative Government on having done just that.

Dr. Ian Twinn: I start by declaring an interest as an adviser to the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education, the union I joined when I first started work as a polytechnic lecturer in 1975 just across the river at South Bank. Since 1975, we have seen some tremendous changes in higher education—certainly, since 1979, changes of which Conservative Members have every reason to be proud. We have seen student numbers increase and the quality of the graduates keeping pace with the numbers going into higher education.
I am very pleased to say that it is the polytechnics that have played the lion's part in the expansion of higher education. I am happy to have been a lecturer during that time and to have contributed to that expansion. Other speakers in this debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir R. Rhodes James), have talked about the joy of teaching. Certainly those of us who come into the House and who have taught before find that it is the one thing that we miss. I would have liked seminar classes the size of the audience this evening at times when I was lecturing.
I am particularly pleased that the polytechnics have now been recognised as coming of age and are to be able to be universities. It was a great step forward when they were set free from the local authorities. I worked for the South Bank poly, which was controlled by the Inner London education authority, and I saw the effects of that control on my polytechnic. We were a limited company, with something very similar to the corporate status which the Opposition would like for further education colleges, while still remaining within local government control. I know the problems which that situation caused. I can therefore well appreciate the attitude of principals of further education colleges in wanting to follow the polytechnics down the line of independence from local authorities, although, one would hope, still maintaining very close links with those authorities, but having their independence and their funding coming from elsewhere.
When I started as a polytechnic lecturer, I had moved from the university system, where I had been trained. The contrast was stark, in that all the students whom I taught as a polytechnic lecturer had a very clear idea what they wanted to do in their careers when they left. They therefore had a certain keenness in their vocational training.


The polytechnics started out with that mission—in my case, the Borough polytechnic at the turn of the century. The polytechnics have had a long and noble career in fulfilling their mission of technical and vocational education. But we saw the breakdown of the binary divide while I was still lecturing. It was impossible to talk about the quality of an individual institution; it was impossible to talk about the quality of individual faculties. If one wanted to make comparisons within higher education, one had to look at the quality of a department, if not of a degree course itself. Certainly, there were plenty of university degree courses within my field of geography and town planning that were recognised as being very inferior to those courses that had been provided by polytechnics for many years.
As a lecturer, I was rather cynical about polytechnics which started to ape universities and call their heads of department professors, for instance, and start to look and behave like universities. I was rather against changes of that sort. But, as time went by and the difference between universities and polytechnics disappeared and polytechnics were taking their part in the expansion of higher education, it became more and more difficult to justify that binary divide. Finally, I changed my mind when I came across the problem when talking to representatives of overseas higher education institutions, who just did not understand what a polytechnic was. On a number of occasions when South Bank polytechnic was trying to negotiate research contracts jointly with European institutions, the latter said that they dealt only with universities, not technical colleges. It took a considerable time to get through to a German institute, for instance, the fact that we were not just a technical college, but a polytechnic, a higher education institute. So the practicalities of being a polytechnic became very difficult indeed.
The change to university status will be welcomed. However, I see one problem and perhaps in his winding-up speech the Minister will address it. Although we are to abolish the divide in terms of funding, I am concerned that the new funding council could end up discriminating between institutions. It may take a stance on the level of research and give more research money to some colleges and universities than to others. I hope that that does not happen. We must ensure equality of treatment by the new funding council. I hope that funding, certainly for research, will be based on the results obtained in faculties or departments and not in institutions. Let us introduce some real competition to higher education. All academics know that competition already exists. We know which university and polytechnic departments we rate highly and which we do not. We do not always speak about that, but we are free with such advice to prospective university students.
I hope that the new institutions and the Government will ensure that this great step forward for polytechnics comes to fruition. There is a dire need to implement the Bill's provisions. As hon. Members have said, the polytechnics have been planning for some time for university status and the power to award degrees. Some students in my constituency who are registered for Council for National Academic Awards degrees expect to have a degree from the University of Middlesex and not from the

CNAA. I can understand their excitement about that. As a former academic who had to deal with visiting panels and who had to try to get new degree courses established, I am pleased to see the CNAA go. It did not inspire much confidence on the bottom rung of lecturing, although I have no doubt that it was popular with those who sat on the visiting panels trying to stop new courses. I have never known an institution that tried to crush competition in quite the way the CNAA did when I was a lecturer. I welcome the debate on the guillotine motion because it will ensure that polytechnic students can look forward to graduating from a university.

Mr. Eric Illsley: I should like to declare an interest that may be relevant. I am a trustee of Barnsley college educational trust. I shall confine myself to further and not higher education, and I shall deal with the problems in my constituency which for many years has had a low take-up of post-16 education. We are at the bottom of many league tables for such take-up. The local authority tried desperately to remedy the situation, which has a long history. Many years ago, employment in mining was easily available and many 16-year-olds took a job in the industry. That entailed a certain amount of training. There are, of course, other reasons for the low take-up, one of which is a culture bias against further education.
The local education authority rationalised its sixth forms and established a sixth form college. It became a tertiary college with open enrolment to encourage more 16-year-olds to take up further education. The Bill threatens much of what my local authority has been doing for some years and puts at risk the hard work and money that it has invested in the tertiary college. I remind the House that my local authority is 36th out of 36 in allocations of revenue support grant to metropolitan districts. We get the lowest amount, and the effect is especially acute in education. We are now faced with the loss of the tertiary college and, perhaps more importantly, with the loss of any input into the college's future education provision.
The Bill will allow colleges and further education institutions to become corporate institutions funded by the further education funding council. That will cut off any local authority or local government influence. There will be no opportunity for local authorities to pursue further education policies to encourage take-up or to increase take-up, such as is required in my LEA. There will no longer be any LEA governors. Even the minor input to the governing body will be removed from local authorities. That illustrates the Government's opposition to local government influence in any aspect. We have seen attack after attack on local government, and mine has suffered more than most, especially in terms of the grant allocated to it in the past few years.
It seems strange that, while a Bill to restructure and inquire into local government is going through the House, another Bill seeks to remove further education provision from local authorities. The Government could have waited until after the publication of the commission's findings. The commission may well report that it would be better to keep education under the control of local authorities rather than passing it to the further education funding council or to corporate colleges. Those colleges will compete with each other through the provision of courses


simply to attract more and more students. Poor take-up or the loss of students to other colleges could lead to college closures.
The director of a college that is the neighbour of a college in my constituency summed it up when he said that he intended to turn Barnsley college into a car park. My town and my local authority could lose a college as a result of the competition engendered by the Bill. How will the people in my area have a choice if our college is closed? How will local needs be addressed if students in my area have to travel many miles to colleges in other towns? Obviously, colleges will have to try to reduce costs and increase the numbers of students if they are to stay in business.
We are also concerned about the removal of accountability. As I have said, colleges will not be able to respond to local needs. There is no way in which people in my constituency could take up any issue or grievance about further education other than through the private college and then, presumably, to the Secretary of State.
Over the years, my local authority has tried desperately to obtain a higher take-up of post-16 education. In Barnsley there have already been clashes between the local college and the local education authority because the college, which is now a private company, has decided to go in the opposite direction to that in which the local authority wished it to go. The courses offered formerly by the college which generated income for the local authority are now being offered through private companies, with the money from those courses going to the college itself as opposed to the education authority. It is that type of control over the content of education provision that is worrying. Courses will probably be offered that do not assist in a local area or are irrelevant to it—that may happen in an area such as mine which is trying to encourage the take-up of post-16 education.
Another big fear of mine concerns charging for further education. That will be particularly unwelcome in an area such as mine which has unemployment of well over 11.5 per cent. Were further education charges to be imposed, they could have a detrimental effect on the people in my area.
The transfer of assets also concerns me. Two colleges are involved—the tertiary college to which I referred and the Northern college. The tertiary college was formed from two town-centre college buildings and a secondary school which was closed to become part of the college. If those facilities were to be transferred to a corporate college, it would result in a substantial loss of facilities for my local education authority, such as sports fields, arts facilities, a theatre and a hall. They would represent a major loss to the local authority and would not be available for the local area. How can the local education authority make anything of its residual power for adult and part-time education if it has no facilities in which to house those assets?
Perhaps the transfer of such assets would be better done by way of a lease so that, should the college fail or should it have to come back into local education authority ownership, the buildings and facilities would still be in the ownership of the authority. That might ensure the continuation of the college.
The assets of any college include its staff. Although there is to be continuation of employment for the lecturers and staff, there seems to be no guarantee of any jobs for

the lecturers and teachers once colleges become corporate institutions. What guarantee have the staff of a future within the college structure?
Northern college is in a unique position in that it is funded by local authorities in south Yorkshire, one of them being Barnsley metropolitan district council. The college was established by local education authorities and, were it not for the involvement of those authorities, it would not exist. Other hon. Members have paid tribute to Northern college. It would be a shame if it were put under threat by the Bill.
The college is housed in a stately home owned by Barnsley metropolitan district council. It is surrounded by a considerable acreage of land which includes an ancient monument, Stainborough castle, and other areas of natural beauty which belong to the authority. It bought them in the 1940s and 1950s to house the then Wentworth Castle teacher training college, which later became Northern college. It is inconceivable to me that the Government will remove from my local authority the ownership of the college and the grounds in which it stands. They are a major tourist attraction, apart from being a college and its surroundings, and over the years my local authority has spent a considerable amount on building up the original college and then on providing facilities for Northern college to start up.
Ownership of the facilities should remain with the local education authority, even if Northern college is designated as a relevant college for the purposes of the Act. I hope that in his response the Minister will say what will happen to Northern college under the provisions of the Bill. I should also like him to say whether it will be able to retain the character of its courses—mainly adult education and trade union courses. Although there are one or two colleges like it in other parts of the country, it would be a shame if such courses were to be threatened by the Bill.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: I am particularly concerned about youngsters between the ages of 16 and 19. 1 have always been a supporter of sixth form centres and colleges, even when many people were against them, and I should like to make sure that nothing in the Bill will limit choice for 16 to 19-year-olds who want to go to sixth form centres. Until now, 16-year-olds who have outgrown school or some who have not done well at school and want a fresh start have had the choice of going on at school or of going to local sixth form centres.
The Secretary of State was evasive about whether education would continue to be free in the new organisations. There may be charges for textbooks and materials, which would be prohibitive for children from poor families, as many families are in Tower Hamlets.
I want to be absolutely sure about the question of child benefit. The child benefit regulations say that the mothers of youngsters from 16 to 19
still in full-time non-advanced education
are entitled to child benefit. I want to be sure that they will still be classified as school pupils entitled to child benefit when the changeover takes place. I would not like us to wake up and find that there had been an unfortunate change in this respect. I want child benefit payments to be guaranteed.
More in doubt are the means-tested discretionary grants, worth about £300, that many local education authorities give to youngsters from poor families. That is


very little, but I know of a number of cases where the family is living on the margins and must have some money coming in from the 16 to 19-year-old, and that £300 has made the difference to whether a youngster can stay on in education. Unless the Bill makes some provision to allow them to be replaced in the new organisation, the changeover will mean that those discretionary grants will go to the wall.
I do not want possible charges to mean that higher and further education will be for those of independent means, and that people who have little money will not be able to continue in education after 16. I also wish that in the Bill there had been a move towards what I would call comprehensive education beyond 16. Up to now, youngsters taking vocational or academic courses have been the ones provided for, but there should be enrichment courses for any youngster who wishes to stay on. This is particularly important in areas such as mine where the attainment level is lower than in many other parts of the country.
Youngsters should be able to state what they want. If they want to study typewriting, ceramics or a language for three months, or do a short one-term course in music, they should be able to do so. It might give them a taste for education and lead on to further courses, and even if they just take a short course, it enriches their life and adds to their cultural development. The Bill should cater for—but does not—that kind of development.
Many of the women's organisations such as women's institutes and the Fawcett Society are angry at the approach to so-called leisure education and the false division of education between vocational and leisure. Many women come back into education through courses that, under the new classification, might be termed leisure courses, for which they will have to pay quite high fees. As women have less money than men on the whole, because their wages are lower and they have less chance to accumulate money and savings, it will be harder for women to return to education. All the hullabaloo about the Prime Minister's charter for women will seem rather cynical if there are fewer women in higher education by the year 2000. That is a bad development.
I have found in Tower Hamlets that adult education is really being squeezed because local education authorities, now that there has been a change in the business rate, are finding it very hard to secure funds. A community education staff group approached me last week. Their courses were slashed first by 20 per cent., and this year by another 20 per cent., and they plan to hold a meeting about the decimation of adult education.
So-called leisure courses, which are becoming expensive and, in many areas, are being abandoned because of lack of funding, are very important to working-class people. For instance, many women go to car maintenance classes. Without such classes it would be unsafe for them to run a car. Many pensioners get great enjoyment from these classes. They are kept young, active and alert in mind and body, and as a result the state saves a good deal of money in the health service and in other ways. If adult education classes become so expensive that people on low incomes cannot afford them, or if they have to close down because

local education authorities are squeezed by a reduction in the amount they get from the business rate, a serious blow will be dealt to women and older people.
As I know that at least two other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall not take up much more of the time of the House. However, I wish to refer to the question of democracy. This too affects women. Women are under-represented on boards and on all political bodies, but local government is one area in which they have better representation. If funding of further education is removed from elected local councils we shall be left with a less democratic and less accountable system. Women will have no influence at all on the funding councils to be nominated by the Secretary of State. This too is a retrograde step.

Mr. Edward O'Hara: I wish to refer primarily to the fundamental flaw in the Bill, to which several hon. Members alluded—the removal of further education institutions from local education authority funding and control. In addition, I shall make some remarks about adult education generally.
The glaring fault, the San Andreas fault, that runs through the Bill—I refer to the centralised control of further education colleges—can be justified neither in terms of past failure nor in terms of likely future improvement of organisation and provision. It cannot be said that under the local education authorities the further education system has failed to prosper. Indeed, it has prospered and been popular. There is no evidence at all that the further education colleges do not have the approval of their communities, and they have earned the commendation of Her Majesty's inspectorate—although perhaps, under the present Government, that is the kiss of death.
Nor can the polytechnics be cited as a precedent. Their removal from LEA control can be justified in terms of their role as national providers. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said much about that point. In any case, there are only 29 such colleges, plus, of course, the national colleges. They exist as a national network, have operated under the national advisory body and have developed their own internal structures. On the other hand, there are more than 500 institutions for the 16 to 19-year-olds. These are essentially local in orientation and provision, so there is no close parallel with the polytechnics; thus, the polytechnics should not be cited as a precedent. In that regard, therefore, there is not much justification for such a radical move.
What, then, are the likely consequences? Is there any justification there? Perhaps the change has overriding advantages. Will it, perhaps, result in greater coherence in strategic planning? Let me quote Hendon college:
School sixth formers will continue to exist side by side with the institutions in the newly formed post-16 sector and will be able to offer places to adults and part-time students. There is every potential that the new arrangements may lack coherence in terms of patterns of provision of education and training across the country, which must take into account local and regional, as well as national, imperatives.
Will good use be made of local knowledge and expertise? It is said:
It is proposed to remove all LEA reps from governing bodies. No good reason is put forward for this, and there are strong grounds to continue some representation to maintain links with the rest of the local education service, including


adult education, schools, the career service and the youth service. (And, indeed, also as the major employers within the area.)
That is the view of Conservative-controlled London borough of Redbridge.
What about local accountability? Redbridge states:
The removal of the colleges from the LEA sector will also remove the colleges from the local democratic accountability that they now have, replacing this by a body of governors which is, in effect, a self-perpetuating oligarchy.
These reforms are ill-judged, rushed and unwanted. They have no justification in terms of efficiency and national planning. Any justification can be based only on doctrinaire policies. As the Conservative leader of Hampshire county council said, it is "government by denigration".
The LEAs are left with the problem of coping with a system that separates 16 to 19-year-olds who are still in school, for whom they are responsible and who belong to a different network of provision from the majority of their cohorts. That is an administrative nightmare and young lives are being disadvantaged. We must consider also the fate of 16 to 19-year-olds who have chosen to go to sixth form colleges, which come under schools regulations and which are soon, according to the Bill, to come under further education regulations. I respectfully suggest that the Secretary of State and his Ministers take a closer look at the implications of the Bill for the 16 to 19-year-olds who are trapped on the wrong side of the tracks, or between the tracks.
Leisure courses, which are split off from adult vocational courses, are another major responsibility for LEAs. They are itemised in schedule 2. The LEAs will provide leisure courses on a discretionary basis by means of funding that is provided through revenue support. That means in effect that costs will be passed on to students. They will be pitched at levels that many clients can ill afford. As a result, the courses will not be viable. Accordingly, their range will be reduced drastically, and in many areas they will disappear.
Voluntary providers such as the Workers Educational Association, and many others, are limited in what they can do. They hope that they will be part-funded by the new funding councils, but they are uncertain about their relationship. If they are part-funded, they are certain that it will be to a level that will force them to pass costs on to students. The result will be similar to those that I have already described.
The comments of one or two clients are revealing. One course client wrote:
My return to a more formal vocational education started by simply attending a ladies' keep fit class and a craft class. This was the first time since leaving school that I had taken up any form of learning. These classes, no matter how trivial or unimportant they are perceived to be by more learned people, were the stepping stones to my education.
I could read many letters of that sort.
Access is all-important and it is short-sighted to put adult education at such risk. The Bill puts adult learning under threat. The adult literacy and basic skills unit has been an important avenue for access to basic skills education. It has ranged from relatively informal adult education to a more formal approach. I approve of the inclusion of basic skills in schedule 2 as a statutory responsibility. It is an advance on the vagaries of discretionary LEA funding, which has often marginalised the work of the ALBSU. I am sure that there will be a positive response to that opportunity.
I make two pleas on behalf of the adult literacy and basic skills unit. First, the funding council should fund these courses on the basis of agreed standards and not on the basis of competition and market forces, to which they are not amenable. Secondly, the opportunity should be taken to free this part of education from the margins of funding by allocating a guaranteed proportion of funding to it that is more than the average of 1·5 per cent. of the present adult and further education budget.
A related issue is that specific provision should be made for students with special needs. There seems to be a dearth of references to that principle, which is well-established in the schools sector.
Another major means of access to formal further and higher education is the open college networks. Members of the open college network are a consortia of providers, which operate a national credit transfer framework and are subject to its processes of quality assurance. The open network accreditation provides a framework of rigorous validation. The accreditation processes require the identification of clear routes of progression as a condition of course recognition, but open college networks do not themselves provide courses. Perhaps, in Committee, Ministers will consider an amendment to clause 5, allowing a funding council to give financial support to an institution established by providers of further education for the purpose of operating credit accumulation and transfer arrangements related to the types of education set out in schedule 2—in other words, an open college network.
I see that I have run out of time. I ask Ministers to give serious consideration to parts of the Bill that merit further examination.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: We have had an interesting opportunity to debate further and higher education. I suspect that, although we may have had many debates on higher education over the past decade or so, we have had few, if any, on further and adult education, and for that reason alone today's debate is welcome. It is interesting for another reason, however: we have heard a number of valedictory speeches today. I refer to the voluntary ones, although one or two may be in a different category. Several hon. Members have said that their speeches today will probably be their last in the House of Commons.
I have heard most of today's speeches. I have always enjoyed the contributions of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas)—who is not in the Chamber at present—to education debates. Those of us who served on the Standing Committee that considered the Education Reform Bill in 1988 welcomed his voice—a voice of freshness and difference—and it is sad to see him retire from the House and go to other pastures at such a young age. I say that with some feeling.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House will no doubt want to add to the comments that have been made about the final speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir R. Rhodes James). We will all have noted the substantial and significant contribution that he has made to our education debates over the years. He has introduced a voice of experience and learning; a voice from the academic world, which should be listened to and respected. I look forward to observing his continued work as a


researcher and scholar, and I am sure that, in both capacities, he will continue to make a substantial contribution.
We shall miss the hon. Gentleman's contributions to education debates. It was characteristic of him to say that we should set up a non-party, apolitical committee to consider education issues. I am sure that that is the way in which he would approach such issues—although I tend to feel that such characteristics will not dominate our education debates over the next few weeks.
It would be remiss of the Opposition to suggest that we do not support parts of the Bill—and we shall support them in Committee, while trying to improve some elements. I refer in particular to the end of the binary divide. Let me echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and others in congratulating the polytechnics on the success that they have achieved so far. It would be churlish to argue about the nature and cause of that success. As the Minister has pointed out, I have a vested interest; let me simply congratulate the staff of the polytechnics. It is right that the divide between the two sets of higher education institutions should now be abolished.
However, that raises questions that need to be answered. My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Dr. Kumar) talked about the need to ensure quality of funding and treatment and to define the purpose of further and higher education, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) also referred. It is important that those issues are addressed. The hon. Member for Cambridge, who is now back in his place, made some important points about research and about the nature of the mission of higher education institutions.
To get the record correct, we must remind Conservative Members that it was the Labour party that tabled amendments to end the binary divide when we considered in Committee what became the Education Reform Act 1988. I was slightly amused earlier when the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) devoted at least eight minutes of his 10-minute speech to getting rid of the binary divide. I looked up the report of the 1988 Standing Committee and noticed that he voted against such a measure. One thing is clear—this may apply to other Conservative Members: time has moved on and perhaps Conservative Members now recognise the strength of new arguments, which have always been the Labour party's arguments. Nevertheless, we are glad that that divide is now to be abolished.

Mr. Andrew Smith: We are winning them over.

Mr. Fatchett: Indeed, we win them over bit by bit, but unfortunately that process will not go on for much longer—[Interruption.] As my hon. Friends say, we are winning the intellectual argument bit by bit, and that will certainly continue, but unfortunately we shall be unable to win over sufficient numbers of Conservative Members because there will not be so many of them when we return after the election—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends are right; I personalise these things too much. I should not worry about redundant Conservative Members because they usually do very well.
I hope that the Minister of State will give us some reassurance on an important point tonight because it is a

matter on which we shall seek to table amendments in Committee. I refer to the higher education institutions that had been preparing for polytechnic status, such as Luton, Derby, Southampton, Bolton, Cheltenham and Gloucester. Those institutions now seem to be at the other side of a new binary divide, providing high quality education that has been approved by the Council for National Academic Awards. They are doing good work, but are unable to be part of the new funding council, as they wish. An artificial divide has been created. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) knows one such institute and the pressures that it faces. These institutions should be given the opportunity to obtain university status if that is what they wish. I look forward to the Minister of State giving us an assurance on that either tonight or in Committee. I advise him that, despite the limited amount of time that will be available for any form of debate in Standing Committee, we shall seek to amend the Bill to give those institutions the rights that are enjoyed by other institutions.
The contentious part of the Bill is that dealing not with higher education, but with further education. It was clear from his speech that the Secretary of State could not find much support for his measures. He has no mandate. The Bill was not part of the election manifesto on which Conservative Members fought the last election.
It is also clear that there is no support for the Bill among the local authorities or those who commented on the White Paper last year. The Secretary of State did not follow the practice of his right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), the current Home Secretary, who, when he was Secretary of State for Education and Science, published the responses to the White Paper that led to the Education Reform Act. The current Secretary of State did not do so. It is interesting to believe that the Home Secretary is the champion of open government while the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) likes to keep things under wraps. Having analysed what Conservative authorities have said, it is clear that there is no support for the provisions among the Conservative shire counties, the very bodies which, as has been pointed out, will be asked to knock on doors and to canvass support for the Conservative party in the next few weeks.
Let us start with Essex—many would say that there is no better place to start. Let us begin by considering the comments of Essex county council which is not, by any means, a Labour authority. It said:
The White Paper's proposals failed to make a convincing case why FE Colleges and Sixth Form Colleges are to be removed from local authority control.
So there is no support there.
Then we go to Surrey, the local education authority of the right hon. Member for Mole Valley. One would have thought that with his persuasive charm he could have influenced Conservative Members. What was the response? It said that the proposals were
without any reasonable explanation or justification.
Again, no support.
The third example is from the west midlands. It is Hereford and Worcester LEA, one which has always been a little troublesome to the Government and whose members have been prepared to defend local government. The local authority made a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) made earlier. It pointed out that, in order to establish some local


knowledge, the further education funding council would have to establish regional committees and that those regional committees would cover 5·2 million people. It said:
The needs and aspirations of its 5·2 million inhabitants require something more than a regional committee of 12 or so members, none of whom will be democratically representative of the community nor will they be accountable to that community for their actions.
Is not the crucial argument that the Government have taken out of democratic control such an important service as further education and are placing it in the hands of an unaccountable, undemocratic bureaucracy? In so doing, they face opposition from not only Labour but Conservative local education authorities.
Why are the Government centralising and nationalising the further education colleges? One argument may simply be that which the Secretary of State used in his statement in March last year. He said that Britain lagged behind its competitors. It was an interesting statement because it recognised that the Government had been in office for 11 years and Britain still lagged behind in post-16 education and training provision. That point was recognised by Lord Belstead in the Second Reading debate in the other place. He said:
I would not stand before your Lordships today and say that participation rates in further education after the age of 16 are entirely as they should be".—[Official Report, House of Lords; 21 November 1991, c. 1022.]
That was a Minister talking about his Government's record. It is a record of failure recognised by the Secretary of State and by a Minister in the Department of Education and Science.

Mr. Turner: And by the Select Committee.

Mr. Fatchett: And by the Select Committee, as my hon. Friend says.
If there is a reason for that failure, it is not that the further education colleges are at fault. The reason is the failure of the Government to give any direction, meaning or leadership in post-16 education and training in Britain. For a decade we have lived with the short-change, quick-fix approach to post-16 training. The Government have seen youth training as a means not of providing vocational qualifications and easy access to qualifications for the labour market but of massaging the unemployment figures. That is why they claim now that they have achieved some improvements in staying-on rates.
But the only way that the Government can point to an improvement is by including youth training—a scheme that is discredited by European standards and gives only a quarter of those who enter it any valid and marketable qualification. That is the record of the Government. Incidentally, it is a record which shows itself in another way. The Secretary of State says that he has now discovered further education and post-16 education as a priority. Perhaps he has not looked at his Department's record. In the past three years, that record shows that the investment per student from 1987 to 1990—these are the Government's own figures—fell by 10 per cent. in real terms. The Government have not invested in further education.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Those are ridiculous figures.

Mr. Fatchett: They are the Government's figures.

Mr. Clarke: I am sorry, I did not intend to put the hon. Gentleman off. He used a ridiculous figure which shows the worthwhile advance in reducing unit costs. He then said in the next phrase that those figures showed that we had failed to invest. The record over the past three years is of rapid increases in investment and enormous increases in the number of students. The hon. Gentleman uses the stupid statistics which the Opposition constantly use to denigrate a programme of rapid extra investment in education.

Mr. Fatchett: I should have thought that even this Secretary of State could have done better than that. When talking of schools, the Secretary of State likes to use the figures per pupil. When it comes to colleges, he has to use other terms. As he knows, there has been a cut in the level of investment per student in the college sector.
The Government have failed further education, have failed to provide leadership and have now introduced a measure which is simply aimed at centralising and giving more power to the Secretary of State. The measure is against the wishes of the Government's friends in local government.
However, the further education provisions are crucial to the nature of the Bill because the Government have never seen the consequences of their actions. The worst of those consequences will be the Bill's effect on the adult education service, which is a matter of pride for students, for local education authorities and for those who work in the service. Indeed, the hon. Member for Tiverton (Sir R. Maxwell-Hyslop) argued strongly about that aspect of the Bill, mentioning the link with the community in terms of pre-16 and post 16-year-old students and adults and the impact of the Bill on education provision and the life of a community.
The Bill will put adult education at risk throughout the country. When the Secretary of State was asked to justify the new system, he said that it was neat, it was tidy and that it would work. Then we went into some of the details and the various layers in the bureaucracy. There will be a bid to a further education college in the hope that funding will be available. If it is not available, there will be a bid to the further education funding council. If the money is not available there, the college will have to go to the local education authority.
Is it not nonsense for the Government to believe that local education authorities—stripped of their further education functions, and colleges, rate-capped and under great pressure because of the poll tax in many areas—will pick up the tab from central Government to fund adult education? Have not the Government given a clear message to every local education authority that the Government value vocational adult education but not non-vocational adult education? The division does not exist intellectually or in practice, but the Government want to hold to that division because they believe that it will save money when providing adult education services.
If my hon. Friends are in any way doubtful about what will happen to the adult education service, let them look at the record of what has happened in Conservative-controlled local education authorities in the past few years. When they have been under pressure to keep down the poll tax, what service has been cut more than any other? It will always be the non-mandatory, discretionary services. In


Warwickshire, it was the virtual abolition of the youth service—written out by the Conservative local education authority.

Mr. Pawsey: That is a gross exaggeration. The youth service in Warwickshire will still attract a budget of more than £450,000 and the county council does not propose to sell off any buildings or plant. So the youth service remains. Warwickshire county council wishes to involve the voluntary sector more in its proposal.

Mr. Fatchett: That was probably one of the weakest defences that I have heard. I am glad that I will never be in a position to have to employ the hon. Gentleman as a counsel in my defence because, as he knows, Warwickshire is basically opting out of its responsibilities for a youth service.
We also know that throughout the country Conservative-controlled LEAs have cut back on adult education, because it is a discretionary service and they see the oppportunity to save money in that area.
The Government offer one hope to the millions of people who look to the adult education service—that local authorities which are squeezed, in Tory areas against adult education, will then pick up the bill and maintain the service. The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) was right to raise the issue. It is important and it will not go away. In Committee, we shall push the Government further because we want guarantees to ensure that the adult education service survives.
There is no educational or democratic justification for taking further education colleges out of local education authority control. The Bill came about for one reason—to massage the poll tax and to save the face of Conservative Members. They are so deeply worried and embarrassed by the weakness of their arguments that they are not prepared to spend time in Committee to defend them. They are running away from the argument. Parents have no confidence in the Government's provision of education. The Government have lost the confidence of parents and they have lost confidence in their own arguments. After this Bill, they will be on the way to defeat at the next election. The Bill will be a further nail in their electoral coffin.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): We have had an interesting debate which has been dominated by distinguished ex-lecturers and the ex-teachers on the Opposition Benches. We have enjoyed the quality of their arguments.
I do not have a lot of time, but I shall try to deal with the points raised by Labour Members and my hon. Friends. It is fair to say that there has been a consensus in welcoming the higher education provisions in the Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce) raised a couple of items that were still of concern to him. The first related to the condition of grant under clauses 68 and 81. I assure my right hon. Friend that the condition of grant under the Bill, as amended, may not relate to the appointment of particular staff, to the admission of particular students or to the duration of

particular courses. The power of direction in clause 81 is an important long-stop power for the Secretary of State to protect taxpayers' interests.
Although the wording of the clause may not be clear as my right hon. Friend would like, it is the result of extensive discussions in another place. It is unlikely that, however much oil is burned between now and Report, we would find a clearer form of words that would be more acceptable to all. We now have the complete agreement of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to that wording.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) raised the issue of the quality assessment committees of the funding council. Those committees will consist of a majority of independent members, and the assessment staff will largely be former members of Her Majesty's inspectorate. It is extremely unlikely, to put it gently, that their judgment will be affected in any way by the fact that they are working for the funding council rather than Her Majesty's inspectorate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir R. Rhodes James) and the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Carr) asked about the funding of pure and strategic research in higher educational institutions. It is accepted that applied research is intended to be essentially self-financing. We do not intend to make specific resources available for its support. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge that the dividing line between applied and pure research is not perhaps as simple
My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) made the important point that the allocation of funds between new and existing university institutions should be on a basis of departmental, rather than institutional, performance. I completely agree with him, and we intend to proceed in that way.
I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge on his contribution. While we of course regret his departure from this place, I look forward to reading an increased output from his pen. I have greatly enjoyed the books that he has produced over the last 15 years or so. I recall, before coming to this place, attending a small party political meeting not far from the House which he addressed on the subject of the way forward for a future Conservative Government. It was the most stimulating and original presentation that I had heard during the late 1970s. I appreciate, as an individual, how effective he can be as a communicator and lecturer. Lucky indeed are his future students.
The subject of further education has dominated the debate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State explained clearly the broad thrust of the Government's policies and the main features of the Bill. It is worth repeating that we are freeing FE colleges from local authority control and giving them a powerful incentive, through the new funding regime, to recruit additional students.
FE college funding will be student-led, and colleges will be rewarded for attracting increased numbers. In that way they will have every incentive to respond to local needs and demands and to expand participation locally in the way that they think is best for their communities. They will be the masters of their own destinies, to the benefit of their students, local employers and the country as a whole. Far from centralisation, as those on the Opposition Bench


have charged, the Bill is about putting the decision-taking powers where they belong—with colleges at a very local level so that they can respond to local needs.
Some of my hon. Friends expressed concern about the effect of the Bill on adult provision in certain parts of the country. One was my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel). I see in his place my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who has not been able to speak in the debate, but I know of his concern about what is the almost unique position of Richmond adult and community college. It is widely recognised that that is an excellent college which serves the local community well. I am well aware of the concerns felt in Richmond about the future of the college, and I wish to put them at rest.
As my hon. Friends know, Richmond college is not included automatically in the Bill's provisions which govern the funding of FE colleges by the new funding council, but should the college wish, it can apply to be funded directly by the FE funding council. The means is through incorporation under clause 16, a provision expressly designed to cover cases such as Richmond college.
Clause 16 would not be in the Bill had we not expected colleges like Richmond to want the option of taking advantage of it. It would not be there if we did not expect the funding council to be willing to propose to the Secretary of State that such colleges should be funded as part of the new sector. I see no reason why the Secretary of State would turn down such a proposal from the funding council.
However, as I said in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes, the decision is for Richmond college alone. If it decides not to apply under clause 16, it is also covered by clause 6(5). It can have all its provision on the funding council side considered for funding by the council by applying through an FE college. The regional committee will have an important role to play in advising the council on such an application. If Richmond college were dissatisfied with the handling of its application, it has a right to turn to the Secretary of State. All those who use Richmond college should be aware that there is no reason to believe that the Bill will harm the further education of adults in Richmond or elsewhere.
My hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton (Sir R. Maxwell-Hyslop) and for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) in particular raised the issue of community colleges. Those are important in many parts of the country and we want them to flourish. That is why we introduced clause 6(5), which enables community colleges to apply through FE colleges for schedule 2 provision. The FE colleges must then forward the application to the council where they believe that provision would otherwise be inadequate in the area. That relates to the overall provision in an area, not the provision to be made by the FE colleges themselves.
If the FE college does not forward the bid, the council can intervene and, together with its regional advisory committee, it will need to understand the circumstances of each locality in the country. The council and committees will need to pay particular attention to the accessibility of provision and the role of community colleges. I assure my hon. Friends that, through guidance to the further education funding councils and advisory committees, we shall ensure that they do just that. We should also remember that the Secretary of State may review the

decisions of FE colleges and of the council on grounds of unreasonableness or failure to perform a duty. Taken together, those are substantial safeguards for the continued support of schedule 2 provision in community colleges.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton spoke about timing. May I reassure him about that? The timing for colleges applying under clause 6(5) will be the same as for colleges within the new sector. The council will lay down a timetable for applications and ensure that there is plenty of time for those applications to pass through the sponsoring FE college and, where necessary, for an appeals procedure. There is no reason why that cannot be dealt with in the normal annual timetable for determining public expenditure, and we shall take steps to make it absolutely certain that those timing requirements are made widely known not just to LEAs but to community providers.
The remarkable aspect of this debate is that, after about five hours, the House is still no clearer about the Labour party's policy on further education. The sum total of our knowledge is that Labour Members favour giving further education colleges corporate status as an extension of their local management, but want local authorities to fund the colleges and to retain a major role in planning. They have not answered the most elementary questions.
Would the Labour party incorporate all colleges, or would there be criteria for incorporation? If so, what criteria would there be? We did not know at the start of the debate; we do not know now. Indeed, it is not clear from Labour's proposals what the point of incorporation is. Labour Members say that they want to make no accompanying changes to funding. In that case, why on earth do they want to introduce incorporation? What is the point of setting up FE colleges as independent, legal entities when they have no more control over their decisions and funding than they have at present and when Labour Members want power to remain, as at present, with LEAs?
Let us look at the performance of Labour-controlled LEAs. Sandwell LEA set about trying to destroy what is widely recognised to be an excellent and highly regarded FE college. Now the LEA has announced out of the blue that it wants to cut £2·8 million off Sandwell college's budget for next year. The LEA and the Labour party say that that is all part of strategic planning. I call it strategic victimisation. They are strategically seeking to benefit the LEA at the expense of an excellent FE college.
Let us see what is happening in Labour-controlled Birmingham. Many people there believe that the LEA has deliberately operated a system designed to keep the Birmingham colleges in deficit. Now the council has apparently announced that it will withhold a further £1 million that it was planned to distribute before the end of March for reasons which, according to the city's chief executive as reported in the local press, include
A visit to a Government Minister by representatives of Sutton college to complain about the authority".
Another reason is
Governors from one college calling in financial consultants to challenge the authority's distribution of funds.
That is the reality of local Labour LEA control of good FE colleges. At the very moment when the countries of eastern


Europe are ditching the dead hand of socialist interference and strategic planning, we see it alive, well and working in Labour LEAs like Birmingham.
One of the most interesting things has been the letters that we have had from FE colleges in Labour-controlled areas, explaining the kind of mechanisms that Labour LEAs have used to control FE colleges. Some of the devices
used by my own Labour authority to do this are as follows: they issue the authorised delegated budget late in the financial year and ensure that it is substantially cut from the draft budget which is indicated at the start of the year. At the final outturn the LEA refuses to accept all of the recharges made against it for fees, examination fees, block grants, mandatory awards, etcetera.
In other words, the reality of Labour-controlled LEAs is what has driven so many FE principals and governing bodies to welcome the proposals. They recognise the reality of Labour LEA control. An overwhelming two thirds of FE principals deliberately want to follow our proposal.
The Labour party is taking the same attitude to choice with further education colleges as it takes to parental choice. What it wants is control by Labour LEAs. It wants socialist dictation and socialist planning. That is what we reject in this Bill, and that is why I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 206.

Division No. 77]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Aitken, Jonathan
Buck, Sir Antony


Alexander, Richard
Budgen, Nicholas


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Burns, Simon


Allason, Rupert
Burt, Alistair


Amess, David
Butler, Chris


Amos, Alan
Butterfill, John


Arbuthnot, James
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Carrington, Matthew


Ashby, David
Carttiss, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Atkins, Robert
Chapman, Sydney


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Chope, Christopher


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)


Baldry, Tony
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Conway, Derek


Batiste, Spencer
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Beggs, Roy
Cormack, Patrick


Bellingham, Henry
Cran, James


Bendall, Vivian
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Benyon, W.
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Day, Stephen


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Devlin, Tim


Body, Sir Richard
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dicks, Terry


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dorrell, Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Peter
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dunn, Bob


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dykes, Hugh


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Eggar, Tim


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Emery, Sir Peter


Brazier, Julian
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evennett, David





Fallon, Michael
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Latham, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Lord, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Franks, Cecil
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Freeman, Roger
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


French, Douglas
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gardiner, Sir George
Maclean, David


Gill, Christopher
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Madel, David


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Malins, Humfrey


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mans, Keith


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Maples, John


Gorst, John
Marland, Paul


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Marlow, Tony


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gregory, Conal
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Maude, Hon Francis


Grist, Ian
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Ground, Patrick
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hague, William
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Miller, Sir Hal


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mills, Iain


Hanley, Jeremy
Miscampbell, Norman


Hannam, Sir John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Mitchell, Sir David


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Moate, Roger


Harris, David
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Haselhurst, Alan
Monro, Sir Hector


Hayes, Jerry
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hayward, Robert
Morrison, Sir Charles


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Mudd, David


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Hill, James
Nelson, Anthony


Hind, Kenneth
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hordern, Sir Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Norris, Steve


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Page, Richard


Hunter, Andrew
Patnick, Irvine


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Irvine, Michael
Patten, Rt Hon John


Irving, Sir Charles
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Jack, Michael
Pawsey, James


Jackson, Robert
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Janman, Tim
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jessel, Toby
Porter, David (Waveney)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Portillo, Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Powell, William (Corby)


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Price, Sir David


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Redwood, John


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Key, Robert
Rhodes James, Sir Robert


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Riddick, Graham


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kirkhope, Timothy
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knapman, Roger
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Knox, David
Rost, Peter


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Rowe, Andrew






Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Thornton, Malcolm


Sackville, Hon Tom
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Tracey, Richard


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Tredinnick, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Trippier, David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shelton, Sir William
Viggers, Peter


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shersby, Michael
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Sims, Roger
Walden, George


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waller, Gary


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Ward, John


Speed, Keith
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Warren, Kenneth


Squire, Robin
Watts, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wheeler, Sir John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Whitney, Ray


Steen, Anthony
Widdecombe, Ann


Stern, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Stevens, Lewis
Wigley, Dafydd


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wilshire, David


Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stokes, Sir John
Winterton, Nicholas


Sumberg, David
Wolfson, Mark


Summerson, Hugo
Wood, Timothy


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Younger, Rt Hon George


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman



Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Mr. David Lightbown and


Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)
Mr. John M. Taylor.


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Allen, Graham
Corbett, Robin


Alton, David
Cousins, Jim


Anderson, Donald
Crowther, Stan


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cryer, Bob


Armstrong, Hilary
Cummings, John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dalyell, Tam


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Barron, Kevin
Dewar, Donald


Battle, John
Dixon, Don


Beckett, Margaret
Dobson, Frank


Beith, A. J.
Doran, Frank


Bell, Stuart
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bellotti, David
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Eadie, Alexander


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Eastham, Ken


Benton, Joseph
Edwards, Huw


Bermingham, Gerald
Enright, Derek


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Blair, Tony
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Blunkett, David
Farr, Sir John


Boateng, Paul
Fatchett, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Faulds, Andrew


Bradley, Keith
Fearn, Ronald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Flynn, Paul


Caborn, Richard
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Callaghan, Jim
Foster, Derek


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Fraser, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fyfe, Maria


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Galloway, George


Carr, Michael
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clelland, David
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Cohen, Harry
Gordon, Mildred


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Gould, Bryan





Graham, Thomas
Mullin, Chris


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Murphy, Paul


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Nellist, Dave


Grocott, Bruce
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hain, Peter
O'Brien, William


Hardy, Peter
O'Hara, Edward


Harman, Ms Harriet
O'Neill, Martin


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Haynes, Frank
Patchett, Terry


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Pendry, Tom


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hinchliffe, David
Prescott, John


Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hood, Jimmy
Randall, Stuart


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Redmond, Martin


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Reid, Dr John


Hoyle, Doug
Robertson, George


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Rogers, Allan


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rooker, Jeff


Ingram, Adam
Rooney, Terence


Janner, Greville
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Ruddock, Joan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Salmond, Alex


Kennedy, Charles
Sedgemore, Brian


Kilfoyle, Peter
Sheerman, Barry


Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lamond, James
Short, Clare


Leadbitter, Ted
Skinner, Dennis


Leighton, Ron
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Lewis, Terry
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Litherland, Robert
Snape, Peter


Livingstone, Ken
Soley, Clive


Livsey, Richard
Spearing, Nigel


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Speller, Tony


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Steinberg, Gerry


Loyden, Eddie
Stephen, Nicol


McAllion, John
Stott, Roger


McAvoy, Thomas
Strang, Gavin


McCartney, Ian
Straw, Jack


Macdonald, Calum A.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McFall, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McLeish, Henry
Turner, Dennis


McMaster, Gordon
Vaz, Keith


McWilliam, John
Wallace, James


Madden, Max
Walley, Joan


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wareing, Robert N.


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Martlew, Eric
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Maxton, John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin
Wilson, Brian


Meacher, Michael
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Michael, Alun
Worthington, Tony


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wray, Jimmy


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morgan, Rhodri



Morley, Elliot
Tellers for the Noes:


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Mowlam, Marjorie
Mr. Eric Illsley.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION [Lords] [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Further and Higher Education Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by a Minister of the Crown—



(a) for making grants to any of the following bodies established by the Act, that is, the Further Education Funding Council for England, the Further Education Funding Council for Wales, the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, and
(b) for defraying his administrative expenses under the Act, and

(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to Further and Higher Education Bill [Lords] (Allocation of Time) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to delay you and the House but today 15,000 unarmed Kashmiris sought to cross the border from Azad Kashmir into Indian-occupied Kashmir. They were turned back by Pakistani authorities and one person has been killed. The organisers are planning to resume their march tomorrow and, through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Government to pass on a message to the Governments of India and Pakistan, urging that maximum restraint is shown tomorrow when these unarmed Kashmiris again demonstrate their desire for self-determination, freedom and the unity of Kashmir.

Mr. Speaker: That point of order has nothing to do with the next debate, but I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman has said will have been heard by those on the Government Front Bench.

Orders of the Day — Further and Higher Education Bill [Lords] (Allocation of Time)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

Orders of the Day — Committee

1.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 26th February 1992.

(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on 26th February may continue until 9.30 pm., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 27th February.

2.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated—

(a) shall meet on 18th, 19th, 20th, 25th and 26th February; and
(b) on each of those days shall sit at half-past Ten o'clock and half-past Four o'clock.

(2) The proceedings to be taken on each of those sittings shall be as shown in the second column, and shall be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column, of the following Table:—


TABLE


Sitting
Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


1st
Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2
—


2nd
Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2 so far as not disposed of
—


3rd
Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2 so far as not disposed of
—


4th
Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2 so far as not disposed of
—


5th
Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2 so far as not disposed of
—


6th
Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2 so far as not disposed of
—


7th
Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2 so far as not disposed of
—


8th
Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2 so far as not disposed of
Midnight


9th
Remaining proceedings
—


10th
Remaining proceedings so far as not disposed of
9.30 p.m.

Orders of the Day — Report and Third Reading

3. The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

Orders of the Day — Procedure in Standing Committee

4.—(l) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the member who moves, and from a member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

5. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

6. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Orders of the Day — Dilatory Motions

7. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Orders of the Day — Extra time on allotted days

8. If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Orders of the Day — Private Business

9. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Orders of the Day — Conclusion of proceedings

10.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed to the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or that Motion is made by a member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the beginning to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Orders of the Day — Supplemental orders

11.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by

this Order the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Orders of the Day — Saving

12. Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which this Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by this Order; or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Orders of the Day — Recommittal

13.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Orders of the Day — Interpretation etc.

14.—(1) In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Further and Higher Education Bill [Lords].

(2) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) and Standing Order No. 103 (Business sub-committees) shall not apply to this Order.

The House knows that we have a full programme involving both Houses in a great deal of work this Session, so it is essential to manage the programme in such a way as to ensure the orderly progression of Bills through their various stages. This timetable motion is part of that process.

I made it clear in my evidence to the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), that I support—I am speaking personally—the much wider use of timetable motions for Government Bills, particularly in their Committee stages. I am much encouraged to see that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) agreed with that. I understand that most of the evidence to my right hon. Friend's Committee on that point favours the timetabling of Bills.

The purpose of the timetable motion is to structure the debate in Committee—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would hon. Members who are below the Gangway come into the Chamber or leave, please?

Mr. MacGregor: The purpose of the timetable motion—

Mr. Jack Straw: Will the Lord President confirm that my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has never supported the introduction of a guillotine on the proceedings of a Bill without any agreement with the Opposition? He has not done so either in his evidence to the Committee or on the Floor of the House.

Mr. MacGregor: What I have said before in the House is that the hon. Member for Copeland supports the principle of the timetabling of Bills. I spoke about the


much wider use of timetable motions. I referred not to this one but to the principle. I hope that the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale will put proposals to the House that we can then debate.
The purpose of the timetable motion is to structure the debate during the Committee stage to ensure that sufficient time is devoted to all the elements requiring detailed consideration. It is in line with the precedent of the timetable motion on the Local Government Finance Bill, which is generally held to have worked well and provided for effective consideration of the Bill.
I am very pleased that, in so far as it is possible, we have been able, through the usual channels, to accommodate the wishes of the Opposition on the allocation of time to different parts of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, acceded to Opposition requests that 80 per cent. of the time available in Committee should be spent on clauses 1 to 14, which deal with further education funding councils. I understand perfectly well why that should be so, as the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made clear in the Second Reading debate his support for the higher education reforms, which account for quite a large part of the bulk of the latter part of the Bill. I hope that this allocation reflects the wishes of the House as a whole. As was made clear in the debate today, there is agreement—on both sides, I think—on the latter parts of the Bill dealing with higher education, although here, too, we are providing reasonable time for consideration in Committee.
The Bill has been given extensive consideration in another place—a total of about 65 hours, including four days in Committee and three days on Report. The time that this timetable motion provides for the Committee stage will be ample for consideration of the issues that the House as a whole has shown it wishes to raise. The timetable provides for a minimum—I stress that it is a minimum—of 50 hours in Committee, and the Committee may go beyond that if it wishes to do so.
Another issue is the need for speedy processing of the Bill. That reflects two things—first, the shortened nature of this parliamentary Session, giving rise to the need to proceed with our Bills in an orderly way through Committee if we are to dispose of as many of them as possible; and, secondly, the importance that we attach to this Bill, which is symbolic of the high priority that we give to the reform of further education, as well as higher education.

Mr. Derek Enright: As the passing of the Bill is being given such high priority, will the Leader of the House guarantee that all the evidence will be put before the Committee—that some of it will not be suppressed, as the Secretary of State suppressed evidence put forward by colleges of further education?

Mr. MacGregor: Having heard the exchanges earlier today, I do not think that there has been any suppression. Certainly, I know that in very many colleges of further education there is substantial support for what the Bill seeks to do.

Mr. Dennis Turner: I appeal to the Leader of the House to ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science to do what he has been

asked repeatedly, during and before the debate, to do—publish the survey information that has been sent to him by colleges of further education. It is as simple as that. If the Secretary of State for Education and Science does not want to be charged with the suppression of evidence, the Leader of the House should appeal to him to come clean, go public and reveal the evidence.

Mr. MacGregor: I certainly know of further education colleges that are very enthusiastic about the Bill and whose one concern is that it may not complete its passage during the current Session. That is why we are discussing the motion. We are providing ample Committee time for consideration of evidence of the type about which the hon. Gentleman is talking.
It is vital that we should not lose the momentum on these important reforms. There is a great demand from universities, polytechnics, further education colleges and sixth form colleges to implement the reforms as quickly as possible so that we may avoid the damaging effect on morale that delays and uncertainties could cause. The sooner the funding councils are started up and are able to discuss detailed formulae and arrangements for the distribution of funds to institutions of higher education and institutions of further education, the better.
The Bill also means big changes for further education and sixth form colleges. They, too, need to know without delay where they stand so that they can prepare to work in and with the new structures and make their own bids for funds. It is essential that these councils are set up as soon as possible so that they may start work on all the detailed arrangements and consultations that will be necessary if a smooth transition to the new funding system is to be ensured. As I am constantly told by many who get in touch with me, uncertainty and delay would be damaging to the whole of the further and higher education sector. That is why it is essential that we make progress with the Bill as quickly as possible, consistent with proper discussion and consultation—not so much consultation as consideration—in the House. [Interruption.] At this point it is consideration in the House. I readily acknowledge the need for time to debate the Bill in Committee. I believe that the timetable that we are proposing offers a sensible and balanced way of achieving all the different objectives, including the legitimate desire of the House to consider the Bill fully, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: There is a small part of me that feels that, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I should welcome what the Leader of the House has said. As we all know, it is a matter of only a few weeks before the joyous day when the boot will be on the other foot and the right hon. Gentleman will be sitting on the Opposition Front Bench making speeches on timetable motions. Part of me thinks that he is setting a useful precedent.
The right hon. Gentleman has explained how important it is that the rights of the Opposition should be restricted. Apparently, it is a mistake to spend too many hours discussing a Bill. When the time comes, as it certainly will, for a Labour Government to introduce quite a lot of progressive legislation that the country desperately needs, I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends will wish to oppose it. He will not really be able to do that, however, because he will


be obliged to stand at the Opposition Dispatch Box and commend any guillotine motion that we bring before the House on the basis that the Labour Government are faithfully following the precedent of 13 years of Tory government.
The Leader of the House may not operate in quite that way. I think that he will learn the tactics of Opposition rapidly. I hope that he learns them well, because he will need to deploy them for a long time.
Let me make it crystal clear—I have done it before and I do not mind doing it again—that I do not have any fundamental or irrevocable objections to timetable motions. I do not know whether I speak for all my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Leader of the House was right to say that there were many who said, in giving evidence to the Committee which he set up, that they think it right that Bills should be the subject of timetables.
However, the right hon. Gentleman completely misrepresented the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who has been quoted, by implying that we, the Opposition, would be happy if timetable motions were introduced without any attempt to secure an agreement on what the timetable should be, and without any reciprocal arrangement that improved the rights of the Opposition. There are many ways in which that could be done. When there is a Labour Government and the Leader of the House finds himself sitting on the Opposition Benches, that Administration will be gracious to the then Opposition. We shall discuss ways in which the rights of the Opposition can be observed. It is—[Interruption.] Some of my hon. Friends are not as generous as I would be prepared to be.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend talks about rights. I ask him to remember that there are the rights of the Opposition and the rights of those outside the House, who ought to have the opportunity to influence our decisions. This guillotine motion will make it extremely difficult for those outside to make representations to those who consider the Bill in Committee following its Second Reading. When my hon. Friend is discussing rights, I ask him to accept that it should be emphasised that a guillotine gags Parliament and many others outside.

Mr. Grocott: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. He and I think that consideration should be given to allowing Committees to bring people before them to give evidence on a Bill during its passage through Parliament. Many reforms are possible, and a new and reforming Government will consider them all.
Whatever our views on guillotine motions, one or two matters must be put on the record. All Governments use guillotines, but no Government have used them with the frequency of this Administration. No Government have used similar means. The figures that I am about to present to the House will embarrass the Leader of the House, but I shall get them on the record none the less.
The right hon. Gentleman has answered one or two questions on the frequency of the Government's use of the guillotine procedure. Indeed, he answered such a question on 8 November 1991. I am sure that this was inadvertent—perhaps the wording of the question was not as precise as it should have been—but the answer did not begin to present an accurate picture of the number of times that guillotine motions have been brought before the House by

the Government. I am sure that hon. Members will not mind if I put one or two statistics on the record. To be fair—after all, if I do not do it, I am sure that someone else will —I shall go back to the time of the last Labour Government.
In the period of five years and two months between February 1974 and May 1979, a Labour Government introduced 20 guillotine motions. In a four-year Parliament, the 1979–83 Tory Government introduced 19. In another four-year Parliament, the 1983–87 Tory Government introduced 17. In four years and eight months, the current Government have introduced 35. The Leader of the House may want to check that, and put his own figures right to make sure that the record is straight. Let me give the details: it will take about 30 seconds.
Let us start with 1987. Three guillotine motions were tabled for discussion of the Bill that became the Education Reform Act 1988.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Should we not remind the House that that legislation was supposed to stand the test of time? Because it was rushed through, another piece of legislation is now needed to put matters right. Is that not a very good illustration of the problems to which misuse of the guillotine to ram legislation through the House and the country can lead? In this instance, a second Bill has had to be presented, and most people in the education system have found themselves in a mess in the intervening three years.

Mr. Grocott: My hon. Friend has made a powerful point. Exactly the same is true of the Government's shambolic efforts in regard to local government finance.
Between 1987 and now, there were guillotine motions on the following: the Local Government Finance Bill two; the Social Security Bill one; the Firearms (Amendment) Bill two; the School Boards (Scotland) Bill; the Housing Bill; the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill; the Water Bill two; the Official Secrets Bill two; the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill two; the Dock Work Bill; the Football Spectators Bill; the Children Bill; the Companies Bill; the Local Government and Housing Bill; the Employment Bill; the National Health Service and Community Care Bill two; the Social Security Bill two; the Human Fertilisation and Embryo Bill one; the Education (Student Loans) Bill; the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill; the Dangerous Dogs Bill two; the Local Government Finance Bill; the Education (Schools) Bill; the Further and Higher Education Bill—which we are now discussing—one. According to my arithmetic that adds up to 35 guillotine motions, which is unprecedented in modern times—indeed, ever, so far as I can judge.
I do not know why the Leader of the House bothers with his Committees, given that he has apparently introduced a major constitutional innovation without any agreement from them. Not only are guillotine motions being introduced with phenomenal frequency; they are being introduced at a very early stage. Let us take the last five for which the right hon. Gentleman has been responsible. The guillotine motion on the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill was introduced on 26 March last year, before any Commitee debate had taken place. The motion on the Dangerous Dogs Bill was introduced on 10 June last year—again, before any such debate had taken place. The motion on the Local


Government Finance Bill—which set a record—was also introduced before debate had begun. The Education (Schools) Bill motion was a minor improvement on the Government's previous record; it was introduced on Report and Third Reading. The current guillotine motion, however, has been introduced without any attempt to decide whether it was necessary.
The Government have used the guillotine in a way that no other Government have—with alarming frequency and absolute severity. They have imposed their will on the House. Despite having a huge majority in the past five years of over 100 Members, they have still felt the need to do what, until he became a member of one, Lord Hailsham used to describe as playing the game of being an "elective dictatorship". That is the way in which the Government have operated.

Mr. Frank Haynes: It happens to be worse than that—[Interruption.] Oh, it is. I smell a rat here—I really do. The Secretary of State for Education and Science sits on the Treasury Bench, treating us over this Bill just as he did when he was Secretary of State for Health. I remember the time when you and I, Mr. Speaker, had a few words because of what was happening because of the Secretary of State for Health—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh yes, I remember it well and I am sure that you do, Mr. Speaker. I apologised to you anyway—[Interruption.] Sherwood can shut up. The important thing is the rat, which is the question of the report on the survey—

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): indicated dissent.

Mr. Haynes: The Secretary of State need not shake his head. He is ducking out of his responsibilities as Secretary of State for Education and Science, just as he did on health. On top of all that, he is rushing everything through to deny us the report on that survey. It is a shocking state of affairs, and the Secretary of State should be ashamed of himself.

Mr. Grocott: My hon. Friend raises a point that has been raised many times before. Perhaps he should have directed his appeal directly to honest John sitting opposite me on the Treasury Bench, who may well be able to persuade his fellow member of Cabinet that he should—

Mr. Haynes: I am glad that my hon. Friend has given way again, because it is some time since I smelt a rat in the Chamber, but there is one knocking about tonight. The Secretary of State should come clean. I do not know what the people back in Rushcliffe think about him when he messes about in this way. He messed around with health, and look at the mess we are in. Now he is messing around with education, and look at the mess that that will be in. It has got to stop. The people will decide in not many weeks' time. I know that I will not be here, Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] The right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Leader of the House and all those on the Treasury Bench know that the people outside will not stand for this kind of activity—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State is supposed to be listening. That is how he ducks out of his responsibilities and will not come clean——[Interruption.] Now I shall sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Is this an intervention or a speech? [Laughter.]

Mr. Grocott: Sadly, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) will not be with us after the election, but my experience of him suggests that if he opens his mouth in Ashfield, we shall hear him down here—

Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall hear it.

Mr. Grocott: The details of the timetable motion allow for just five days' debate on a Bill which is 103 pages long, contains 94 clauses and nine schedules and which must report back to the House by 26 February. I have listened to fair chunks of the debate tonight, and there can be no doubt whatsoever that considerable complexities need sorting out, many of which have been raised by Conservative Members. I am sure that they need the time to debate the Bill just as much as anyone else.
I ask a simple question to which I know that there is a simple answer, but I still think that it is worth a little time to discover it: why are the Government in such a desperate hurry to get the Bill back to the House on 26 February? I offer one or two possible explanations in an attempt to be generous to the Government. Is it, for example—this could be one reason—because a clear manifesto commitment must be fulfilled, so Conservative Members feel obliged to rush the Bill through at the end of the Parliament?
I have searched through the last Conservative party manifesto. There are many references in it. There is a copy here if Members want to browse through it in the small hours of morning. Perhaps they will find a section that I have missed. There are lots of references to bringing the crime rate down, economic miracles and all sorts of things like that. But I can see no reference whatever to the Further and Higher Education Bill [Lords]. So there is no possible justification for introducing the guillotine motion on the ground of an election commitment.
The second possibility is that the Government have moved the guillotine motion on the ground that an inordinate amount of time has already been spent debating the Bill. We have already answered that point. Of course that is not the case: we have not even reached the Committee stage, so the guillotine motion cannot have been introduced on those grounds.
A further possibility is that the guillotine motion has been tabled because massive opposition to the Bill is anticipated. This is a more difficult one to answer. Of course there is strong opposition to some parts of the Bill, to which many of my hon. Friends have drawn the attention of the Minister, but it also has to be said that, perhaps unusually for Government legislation, there is a large part of the Bill on which there is a wide measure of agreement. That is the part which deals with the ending of the binary system in higher education.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: That is Labour party policy.

Mr. Grocott: As my hon. Friend says, that is Labour party policy. But better than that, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I am sure that you will allow 30 seconds indulgence here—I remind Conservative Members, although they were not all present at the time, of a Bill introduced way back in 1976, if we can have a trip down memory lane. I have


not checked the Division list closely but some Conservative Members present tonight were here then. I know that the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) was not here at the time, and he will not be with us much longer, but many Members who are present tonight were here then.
I draw the attention of the House to 18 May 1976, when the Comprehensive Higher Education Bill was introduced under the ten-minute Bill procedure. Modesty prevents me from spelling out which Member introduced it. The motion was:
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to end distinctions between the various types of educational institutions that cater for people over 18 years of age, and to provide for a genuinely comprehensive system of higher education under democratic control."—[Official Report, 18 May 1976; Vol. 911, c. 1227.]
That was not too bad but, like most ideas ahead of their time, I am afraid that it was voted down by 182 votes to 170. On checking through the Division list, I found that among the Members who sadly threw out that advanced piece of legislation were the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) and other interesting names. I do not have time to check them all.
If the Leader of the House had had the foresight in those early days to see the merit in that legislation, he would not have felt it necessary tonight to move a savage guillotine motion to curtail debate on the measure. That fine piece of legislation would have long since passed into law and we would have had lots of time to spend on Opposition days, motions of censure and other matters on which we could spend our time much more effectively.
So it will not do to say that the reason why the Government found it necessary to curtail debate on the Bill was that they felt that there would be massive opposition to it. There is a whole section of the Bill on which there is a great deal of agreement. We all know why the Government want the Bill back by 26 February. They want it back by then because, on 10 March, they will have a quick fix Budget and then, some time after, if all goes according to plan from their view, they will fix a quick-fix election on 9 April. That is what it is all about.
I would not have minded the motion tonight quite so much if it had been given an honest title, such as the General Election (Clearing the Decks) Motion, or whatever title the Leader of the House wanted to give it. He has this "honest John" face but sometimes he betrays what he is thinking. I thought he looked weary as he presented the timetable motion. It is so similar to the language that he used on previous timetable motions that I do not know why he does not take a tape and mime to it. There is no doubt about it—he knows perfectly well the reason why he is introducing this guillotine motion.
However, the Government are still feeling some degree of nervousness. The timetable might not operate this time. After all, the Prime Minister has run away from three election dates. He was all set to go last spring, and he ran away. He was all set to go in the summer, and he ran away. He was set to go in the autumn, but he did not run away from that one—he got the editors of five friendly newspapers to run away for him. Opposition Members desperately hope that he will not run away this time. Let us hope that for once he will stand up and be counted and go down fighting—as go down he assuredly will. Let us have no more of these silly guillotine motions. Let us have a general election.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: I feel uneasy about this guillotine motion. I have felt increasingly uneasy about such motions in recent months. It seems that we all spend far too little time examining legislation closely. We all know the problem: we legislate too much, and that must apply to all of us.
I became a Member of the House in 1983 on a promise from various people that we would legislate less, that we did not want to legislate all the time, and that we would examine matters more carefully. However, as soon as I got here I realised that we were on a treadmill of legislation. Legislation from the various great Departments of State was pushed upon the House. I think that I am not alone in saying that I have not properly done my job of examining in detail some of the legislation which has come before us.
I wish that we would legislate less and would spend more time considering what we do. This may be my last utterance in the House before the next general election, but I hope to be back—although that is not a matter for me. I would tell any future House of Commons to study legislation more carefully and to legislate less.
This is an important Bill, relating to adult education. How many thousands of millions of people in our constituencies are concerned about this issue? In November last I raised, in an Adjournment debate, the question of adult education in Croydon and Mr. Speaker was in the Chair because of his great interest in the subject. My right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) was also here. In that debate I was able to say that in Croydon in 1991 there were more than 40,000 enrolments for higher education, representing 20,000 to 30,000 students. So many people have an interest in this topic and would therefore expect us to spend a good amount of time on it.
Unless I have read the guillotine motion incorrectly, it seems that the time available to discuss clause 15 through to the end of the Bill amounts to about a day. Yet the Bill contains about 90 clauses, some of which are very important. It is not for me to suggest ways in which the Bill should be improved now; that is a matter for another day. However, clause 28 is important. It relates to the crucial argument about whether continuing education and training services—such as the one in Croydon, which does such a lot of good locally—will be able to bid direct to the funding councils rather than through the new sector colleges.
I raised that matter on the Adjournment of the House. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State understood my concern, but thought that institutions such as those in Croydon should be interested in exploring the possibility of incorporation within the new further education sector by reason of the balance of provisions that they make. That has been mentioned again today. Many of those institutions would not seek incorporation for the obvious reasons. It is important that the close link with the local authority remains.
The adult education service in Croydon is well supported by the local authority. It is important that that service is not barred from applying direct to the further education funding council. The possibility of incorporation represents a difficult route because of the close involvement and commitment of the local authority to that service, which is beneficial to it. That service has


associations with many local agencies and voluntary organisations. It has its roots in the communities of Croydon. There is a good argument for amending clause 28 on Report to enable institutions such as those in Croydon to bid direct.
The Bill relates to issues which are crucial to many people—perhaps as many as 60,000 adults in Croydon. There is a great need for the type of adult education which is provided in Croydon, which has a multi-racial society. Many need extra help in English and other types of subject. The adult education service does a lot of good in such circumstances. It is a pity that we cannot spend more time just looking at some of the issues—for example, clause 28, which is quite important—which affect adult education.
I hope that, in future, this House of Commons, of which we are proud to be Members, will spend just a bit more time looking at what hon. Members do day after day. We should not just go through the Lobbies—half the time I do so without knowing for what I am voting. We should look more carefully at what we are doing and we should legislate less. We should spend more time trying to bring whatever expertise we may have to bear on the subject in question.

Mr. Michael Carr: It was interesting to hear what the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) said about the need for deliberation and careful consideration of the issues which come before us. I agree wholeheartedly with him.
I accept that there may be a case for the use of the guillotine, but surely only after consultation with the official Opposition and the other parties. There was no attempt to consult with us prior to tonight about whether this guillotine should be introduced. We deplore that.
The Bill concerns major issues because it will determine the future of further, higher and adult education for many years. However, the debate on these issues will be held in the run-up to the general election at the fag-end of the Parliament. We are already aware that, more often than not, many hon. Members now use debates in the Chamber as an opportunity to score party political points. Why, oh why, could not the debate on the Bill be held after the general election?
The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West mentioned the number of students who attend adult education classes in Croydon. Throughout the country more than 3 million people attend adult education classes. They will study the motion and the Bill closely. They will want to know why the Government have decided to shove the Bill through in the final weeks of this Parliament. Surely some Conservative Members will concede that it would be far better for the debate on the Bill to take place in an atmosphere free from the heat of an imminent election.
I have no doubt that the Government's huge majority, caused by a distortion of the electoral system, will result in the guillotine motion being approved. I regret that, and we on this Bench will vote against it.

Sir Peter Emery: I had not intended to speak on the motion, but I feel that I must bring to the attention of the House certain points made by the Select Committee on Procedure in two reports to the House on the passage of legislation.
One is that we should try to ensure that all parts of a measure are debated. The Committee has pointed out that nothing is more foolish than to have timetable motions introduced after a Committee has sat for some sessions, perhaps debating the first two or three clauses of a Bill, and then, the guilloting having been introduced, the rest of the Bill—perhaps 60, 70 or 80 clauses—is rushed through with hardly any debate. That must be the worst way of dealing with legislation.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) that an examination of other elected assemblies which can be paralleled to ours in Europe, America or elsewhere shows that we in the British House of Commons spend three, four or even five times longer debating legislation.
Opinions about timetabling motions have altered massively since I took over the chairmanship of the Select Committee on Procedure nearly nine years ago. In those days, nearly everybody was against the concept of timetabling. Now, Members in all parts of the House who have served on the Select Committee on Sittings of the House agree that it is essential to find a proper, reasonable and practical way to deal with legislation in Committee and on Report. Many take the view that there should be timetabling at the start of legislation to enable it to be seen that Members are dealing with all parts of legislation from the word go.
The knockabout, nice party debate that we are having, allowing the Opposition—whichever party is in power—to have a field day attacking the Government, does not achieve much. It happens with only a handful of Members in their places and achieves little, if any, coverage by the media. It could be considered a waste of prime parliamentary time. It would be better to have the whole thing established as part of our Standing Orders, adopting one of the suggestions of the Select Committee on Procedure.
As a member of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, I give nothing away—because it has been said in public session—when I say that consideration must be given to the views of the Lord President and the shadow Leader of the House about the timetabling of legislation, following some of the thinking on the subject of the Select Committee on Procedure.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) suggested that we need to ensure a proper amount of time for outside organisations to lobby the House. Everybody wants that, but outside organisations have been lobbying the House—they have certainly been lobbying me, and I am not in a special position—ever since the matter was being debated in the House of Lords. So although it is an important issue, it falls in this case.
If those on the Opposition Front Bench are right and there is an election on a certain day in April, the Government are right not to allow many hours of debate on the first few clauses so that subsequent clauses are rushed through without sufficient consideration. They are


right to impose a timetable at the start of the Committee stage to ensure that all parts of the Bill are properly dealt with.
I was trying to calculate the exact number of hours which the motion allows the Committee to spend debating the Bill. The time set for one of the days is midnight, but it is not clear how long the Committee might sit for the first six days. It will sit at 10.30 am and then again at 4.30 pm, but it is not clear at what time it rises. It appears that it could rise after midnight. So hon. Members need not worry about keeping the debate going, because no rising time has been set; therefore, if the Opposition so wish, they have all the time in the world to debate the Bill.

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with many of my hon. Friend's comments. We are endeavouring to give maximum flexibility to how clauses 1 to 14 are considered. Therefore, there will be plenty of time, with no fixed limit in the early sittings.

Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted that I have been able to hit on that point, because the flexibility means that the Opposition cannot claim that they will not have enough time to debate those clauses. They can continue to debate them all night, and even until the following morning, if they so desire.
However, my Committee does not believe that that is the best way to deal with legislation. We have always suggested that the proper time to rise is after 10 o'clock.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is so distinguished that it may be some time since he has sat on a Standing Committee. He omits a small detail in the form of the Government Whip. My hon. Friends who will sit on the Committee will be entertained to hear that they can debate the Bill for as long as they wish, but sadly it will be open to the Government Whip to stand up whenever he wishes and move the adjournment. As he knows that the Government will get the Bill in any event, nothing stops him doing that.

Sir Peter Emery: That is absolutely true. Moreover, nothing about time or my distinction would stop that happening. However, once Governments of either party know that they will complete a Bill on a certain day, they hand much of the power over to the Opposition to decide how they want to use that time to debate the proper timing and clauses. It is an integral point, but one that we well understand.
I am delighted to see that the Government are willing to introduce a timetable motion at the start of Second Reading. Years ago, they would never have done so. It will ensure that we do not waste time purely trying to show the Opposition's strength in delaying tactics, which gets nobody anywhere. Such parliamentary procedure in Committee is coming to an end, as it is being seen as a useless use of time. I congratulate the Government on introducing a timetable motion at the very start of the Committee stage.

Mr. Michael Foot: I am glad to have the chance of following the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Procedure Select Committee, although I strongly disagree with his suggestions, for reasons that I have given before and hope to repeat this evening.
The House of Commons would make a great mistake if it accepted the proposition that this is the right way for it to operate. I understood the eagerness of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) in anticipating the events of the rest of the year. I shall rejoice greatly when they occur. I advise him and others to be extremely reticent in proceeding to the supposedly automatic system of introducing guillotine motions, especially after our experience of the past few years under the Government. My hon. Friend gave the details and I shall return to them in a moment.

Sir Peter Emery: I omitted one fact: there will be sadness on both sides of the House when the right hon. Gentleman no longer is a Member of the House, following his distinguished service.

Mr. Foot: Hon. Members will not be able to have a proper debate on a guillotine motion without me. I hand on some of my experience of these matters to both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin talked of the boot being on the other foot. I thought that rather an inelegant phrase and I shall return to it.
I do not intend to speak for hours, but I should like to make a few further comments. The House would be wise to listen to the warnings from the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins). He stressed how unwise it was for the House to curtail Committee stages. In some respects, Committee is the most important stage —the atmosphere can be changed and the follies of Government can be corrected. Indeed, at the end of this Parliament, hon. Members should have learnt the lesson better than ever before.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) emphasised how important it was not merely for Members of Parliament but for our constituents to put their case. They will have little chance of doing so on the Bill in the circumstances in which the Leader of the House has introduced the guillotine.
I know that there has been discussion in the House of Lords, but that makes the offence worse. That may tempt more Governments to introduce more Bills there. That is the wrong way to proceed. I do not think much of the House of Lords anyhow, but it is essential for the proper performance of parliamentary government that the major Bills—this is one—are introduced first in this House. The House of Commons has the right to say first what it thinks of a Bill. The proper way to proceed is for Members of the House to consult their constituents and consider the whole Bill in detail first. The Government should have learnt that better than anyone.
The hon. Member for Honiton talked as if there were a great wave of support for the view that he and others advocate on this matter. I am not saying that there has not been considerable support for it, and he can report that to the House. I repeat, however, that a guillotine greatly injures the way in which the House operates. Of course, Governments like the guillotine, but the House is not in existence only to protect the rights of Governments and the Executive. It is even more than that—the House is here to protect the rights of different Oppositions.
I have said a good deal more on Government Back Benches than I have on Opposition Back Benches and very often it has been what has been done on Government Back Benches that has saved even Labour Governments from some of their follies. Even Labour Governments can


occasionally commit follies. They did not in the measures involving the five guillotines which I introduced. They were all excellent measures, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin who voted for them so enthusiastically, will confirm. I do not say that they all had the high quality of the measure that he introduced, but they were very fine measures indeed. On all, there had been a full chance for the House to discuss matters before the guillotine motions.
It is true that, without guillotines then, the Bills could not have been brought into operation. They had all figured prominently in the election manifesto of the Labour party at the time. That, of course, is not at all the circumstances now.
I do not expect shame from Ministers, but I should have thought that all the Ministers present, and all the others who might come in later, would be a little wary about pressing this matter. They all know that the Bill has been brought to the House in this form only because of the catastrophe of what happened on the Bills that were guillotined a few years ago—the poll tax Bills. Without them, we would not have had this legislation.
All the Ministers present are poll tax Ministers, as far as I can see. All of them, including the Leader of the House, voted for the poll tax. The right hon. Gentleman was a keen supporter of the poll tax. He had at his side that second eager poll tax supporter, the Secretary of State for Health. He may have been involved in some other misdemeanours at the same time, but he was also supporting the poll tax in the Cabinet. Then there is poll tax Patten. Why do we not have his intellectual contribution to this debate? 
I remember many debates on poll tax motions when the chairman of the Conservative party came along. He was usually the person most eager to get the guillotine through. On this occasion, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin and others have pointed out, he has a special interest in being here. There has been real rudeness on the part of poll tax Patten, if I may use that unparliamentary way of describing him, but everybody knows who I mean. I have some difficulty in distinguishing between the parliamentary popinjays, or whatever they call themselves —the Pattens, the Patties and the patsies—I cannot tell the difference. All I know is that they all supported the poll tax and they all voted for the guillotines that carried through the poll tax legislation. I cannot recall a single one making any objection—except, of course, that great, noble figure, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), and even he did not object to the poll tax in Scotland. He thought that it should be tried out on the Scots. The Government did not have to worry about them; they are all anti-Tory anyhow. Along with all the rest of them, he voted to apply the poll tax, through that guillotine procedure, against all the Scots, as well as against all the Welsh and all the English. There are a few prominent poll tax Welsh Members sitting on the Government Benches today. They, too, voted with equal enthusiasm for the poll tax.
Had it not been for the guillotine debate, for the way in which the Government put the pressure on, for the way in which they shepherded all the sheep, ministerial and other, through the Lobbies, we would not be here today. We might even have had a decent election and the country might have been saved a good deal earlier, but everyone

knows that that is how we got here. It is shocking that a guillotine motion should be produced in such circumstances.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin has proved to the hilt that there has been a greater, easier and more eager resort to the guillotine than at any time in English parliamentary history. [Interruption.] There was nothing on that scale in the Labour days. My hon. Friend gave the figures, and if a Conservative Member wishes to dispute them he is free to intervene and do so. There is no disputing what my hon. Friend has put on the record—the Government, who have a huge majority, have increasingly resorted to the use of the guillotine. That has merely shown their intellectual arrogance.
The House used to have the assistance of the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), or Oswestry as it was, until he was sacked. I have often thought that almost the most foolish act perpetrated by the previous Prime Minister was her sacking of the right hon. Gentleman. Apart from a few Labour competitors, he was the best Leader of the House that I have seen, certainly in a Conservative Government. The right hon. Lady got rid of him because he obviously used to say to the Cabinet, "You won't get away with this, you know. You can't go through with that. If you try to do it you will bulldoze the House and eventually the Members will revolt." The right hon. Gentleman may not have put it in quite such strong language, but no doubt that was the way in which he put the case to the Cabinet.
One of the important jobs of a Leader of the House is to report to the Cabinet and tell it what it cannot do. Unfortunately, the last three or four Leaders of the House — I have forgotten the count—have not done that. They have merely said, "Oh, no, we shall have a few more guillotines." I am afraid that the present Leader of the House has added to that ignoble record.
For all those reasons, I hope that the House will reject the idea of permanent guillotines. I hope that hon. Members will remember the Government's bad example. The Government thought they could force through legislation by that means, and legislation on a range of topics became worse and worse. We do not know whether this Bill will be any better. A major piece of legislation was introduced in the most shabby way in the other place. That did not happen in the better days that have gone. We now have to vote on the timing of its procedures, even though we have not had a single hour of discussion in Committee. That is the wrong way to run the House, and any Government who set such an example do grave injury to parliamentary government. That is the last thing that the Opposition wish to see.

Sir John Farr: I oppose the guillotine motion.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Blaenau. Gwent (Mr. Foot). Over the years I have listened to many forceful speeches by the right hon. Gentleman, who always speaks common sense, and I have often agreed with him. The House will be the poorer after the election when the right hon. Gentleman will not be with us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said it was stupid to have such a debate late at night. I think he said that the media did not pay attention


to us. Perhaps he does not know that I have a suitcase full of letters from constituents who are desperately concerned about the Bill.
The reason why some of us have voted against the Second Reading and will vote against the guillotine is that, unless we put into effect this procedure of opposition, there is no proper way in which objections can be fairly and adequately considered. It is not a question of media time; it is not a question of wondering whether the media are listening. I have a duty to nearly a thousand people from the Leicester area who have written to me about adult basic education and community further education.
We have been lucky enough to see the Minister of State; he has been very kind and we have had really good discussions with him. Nevertheless, the fact remains that some of the points that we put to the Minister have not, in Leicestershire's view, been adequately met.
If this guillotine motion goes through, what do I do about the thousand or so letters that I have downstairs? I know that an election is coming, but as a conscientious Member I cannot treat them as so much confetti. All the letters suggest different ways in which the Bill can be improved, but if we accept this awful timetable motion tonight a Bill of nearly 100 clauses will have very limited time for discussion, and the guillotine will fall in Committee. How can any of the amendments be properly considered? 
That is the tragedy of it all. That is why I think that the Government are desperately wrong. I say publicly that they are mistaken in trying to push this Bill through in the face of severe and fierce opposition, not just from committed Labour supporters but from rank-and-file Conservatives and from people who have no particular
We were lucky enough to see my hon. Friend the Minister of State a couple of times, and we tried to explain to him how we in Leicestershire would lose out. We pointed out to him that we have in that county a structure of adult basic education and community further education which the rest of the country can only dream of. We made it clear to him that we have many examples in Leicestershire of one-for-one adult education in the home.

If people want to better themselves, they are entitled to enjoy this sort of instruction: it should not be denied them in a civilised society.
If the guillotine goes through tonight, what happens to all my amendments? I have sent dozens of letters to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science. The last one that he answered was, I think, dated October. None of my November, December or January letters about the Bill has even been acknowledged. I sent him an amendment to clause 5 of the Bill in December; it sought to improve the Bill by taking account—the wording was carefully considered—of existing providers of quality further and adult education. That is all we wanted in a small amendment to clause 5.
Our first discussion with the Minister of State took place four weeks ago. Last week he asked us to bring our experts along from Leicestershire to meet his experts and have a discussion. During the course of that discussion there was no way in which the Minister could do other than acknowledge that, after the Bill goes through, the existing privileged structure of adult basic education and further education in the county of Leicestershire can be other than damaged.
There is no way in which I can vote for a guillotine which so severely curtails debate in Committee. Moreover, what chance do I have of serving on the Committee? I have great respect for my right hon. and hon. Friends, but they will choose those of my hon. Friends who are in favour of the Bill, and I think that the Bill stinks. The Government are remiss to press on in the face of careful and constructive opposition, which has been voiced by experts from the county of Leicester and other parts of the country.
There is no way that I will support the guillotine motion. My fear is that I am not likely to serve on the Standing Committee, although I volunteer for such duty if the opportunity be there. The danger is that, if the guillotine motion goes through, the writers of the suitcase full of letters from my constituency will feel outraged, and they will express that outrage in the way that one would expect.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). It is important to recognise just what a major contribution to education Leicestershire, Cambridgeshire and the other counties that have developed community colleges have made. I simply regret that more counties did not develop such a system, and I am delighted at the way in which Conservative Members are fighting for what was good provision, developed in a bipartisan way over many years.
The first point that I want to make to the Leader of the House is just how bad the guillotine motion is. As I understand the timetable, not only is the Bill being rushed through the Committee, but the timetable is set up in such a way that it looks as though Ministers will refuse all the amendments tabled in Committee. If the Bill leaves Committee on 28 February, and has to be reprinted to take account of amendments, it will only just scrape through, presumably on the Monday, before the Budget. If any amendments have been made, the Bill will have to return to the other place. That would be a tight schedule.
I suspect that the Government will resist all amendments. In that case, is there any point in having a Committee? I will watch the Committee with a great deal of interest to see whether the Government are prepared to make any concessions on either principle or detail. I very much fear that they have decided that the Bill that left the House of Lords is the Bill that will go on to the statute book, and all the proceedings in this House are a formality. If the Leader of the House wishes to intervene to assure us that, if reasonable amendments are tabled in Committee, the Government can accept them, within the timetable, I shall gladly give way, I suspect that they are determined to push the Bill through without further amendments.

Mr. Straw: I invite my hon. Friend to press the Leader of the House to give a clear undertaking that amendments may be accepted, on their merits, by the Government. This is of critical importance to whether the Government are treating the House with contempt.

Mr. Bennett: I do not need to press the Leader of the House. If he wants to assure us that the Government intend to accept amendments, tabled either from Conservative or Labour Members, even if they are minor, he is welcome to intervene.

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot comment on the merits of amendments that have not yet been tabled, so I do not want to talk about the principle of any amendment. However, I can say that, within the procedures laid down, it would be possible for amendments to be moved and voted on, and, if the Government think that there is merit in them, to be accepted.

Mr. Bennett: The Leader of the House has not answered the question. I asked whether the pressure of the timetable would be such that the Government would decide that there were no merits in any of the amendments. It will be difficult for the Government to get the Bill through if they are prepared to accept amendments, because the Bill will then have to return to the House of Lords. I have every sympathy for those hon. Members

who serve on the Committee, but I suspect that they will be lucky if they persuade the Government to reconsider one jot of the Bill.
We started this Parliament with the so-called great Education Reform Bill. When the then Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), introduced that measure, he tried to compare it to the Education Act 1944. He claimed that it would stand the test of time. I suppose that, by comparison with the poll tax that he dreamed up, it has stood the test of time. But was it really such a good education reform measure? Of course, the then Secretary of State had to use the guillotine. He slammed that Bill through the House.
We have seen all sorts of problems develop. Opposition Members suggested, especially in Committee, that a little more time ought to be devoted to the whole question of the national curriculum, particularly those aspects of it relating to testing. The Secretary of State was confident that everything could be done, but we all know what a fiasco the test for seven-year-olds has turned out to be, and how the Government have had to keep rethinking it. If only they had taken a little more time in Committee, if only they had listened to some of the arguments, if only they had not been so determined to rush forward, much damage to seven-year-olds would have been avoided.
Then there was the whole question of the opting out of schools. Opposition Members opposed the idea of grant-maintained schools. We opposed the principle, but we also told the Government that, if they intended to go ahead, they ought to consider some of the problems that might arise if grant-maintained schools should go wrong. But the Government insisted that there was no chance of a grant-maintained school's going wrong, as the great and the good would be on its governing body. Everything would be perfectly all right, so there was no need to build into the Bill any provision by which the local authority could step back in, or any mechanism to sort out problems. The Government pushed ahead with great enthusiasm. The Bill was bashed through the House of Commons and through the Committee.
The Secretary of State may be aware of Stratford school down at Newham. It seems that the rules and regulations provided for in the legislation were not able to sort out that situation with any ease. It must be embarrassing for the Government to face the first grant-maintained school to have gone wrong and publicly got into so much difficulty. If only they had taken the time to listen to some of the arguments in Committee, they would have realised that our opposition was valid. Some safety mechanism ought to have been built in to deal with the worst scenario, but the Government were determined to push the legislation through.
The Government are determined, under the Bill that we are considering tonight, to set up colleges of further education as free-standing institutions. Have they considered what will happen if one of these colleges should go wrong? They are relying very heavily on the quality of the principal and of the governing body.
We all hope that no college will get into difficulty, but the likelihood is that somewhere in the country a principal and his governing body will be at loggerheads, or a college will not be run as efficiently as it ought to be. I wonder whether the Government have put into this Bill a mechanism to deal with such a situation. Regardless of the


merits of taking the control of colleges away from local authorities, that is a matter of detail that ought to be considered very carefully.
During the passage of the Education Reform Act 1988, we had a long argument about whether we should get rid of the binary divide. Again the Government brushed us aside and accused us of talking nonsense: of course the binary divide had to be kept. This is a matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) referred on Second Reading today.
Within three years, the Government saw the good sense of what Opposition Members had said. If they had taken a little more time in Committee, if they had allowed a little more debate at that stage, they might have seen the good sense of our case. The Government, instead of timetabling lots of Bills, ought to provide sufficient time to debate one or two of them effectively.
The Government seem to set their face against local democracy. They sought through the Education Reform Act 1988 to take powers from local authorities and they seek to do so by means of the Bill. There is a common strand. I do not understand why the Government hate local democracy so much, unless it is that Labour councils are elected. Belief in local democracy hangs on whether we are prepared to let those with whom we disagree have their point of view and, if necessary, run institutions.
The Government claim that they are democratic and believe in democracy, but when it comes to local democracy, they remove powers from local authorities and give them to unelected appointees. They assume that that is somehow better than having elected representatives. Yet they are so pleased that in eastern Europe Governments are getting rid of people who were appointed rather than elected; they consider that that is good. I merely say to the Conservative party that it should show some faith in local democracy. If it or the Government have no faith in local democracy, it is hard for them to have faith in national democracy.
Guillotine motions are an erosion of the democratic process. They hand over power to the Executive. The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) has been a continual enthusiast of guillotines and timetabling. I do not know whether that is because he is a part-time Member with other interests who does not want to spend as much time in the House as some others, but unfortunately the hon. Gentleman misleads the House. I have been a Member of this place since 1974, and I have not served as a member of a Standing Committee in opposition when the Opposition have not timetabled consideration of the Bill from the beginning. They have worked out how they want to allocate time.
It is not true to say that the consideration of Bills is not timetabled. It is a matter of who does the timetabling. The tradition of the House has been that the Opposition have the right to arrange the timetabling until such time as they demonstrate to the Government that they are not prepared to deliver the Bill. In the main, the idea that entire sections of Bills are not properly debated is nonsense. Occasionally an entire clause will not be debated, but that will be because it has appeared in previous legislation, and it is clear that there is no political controversy. All those who are consulted outside the House see nothing wrong with that. Why should we spend an hour debating a clause if no one can see any problem with it? 
Time will be allocated to clauses when there is party controversy or drafting problems, but to spread the idea

that Bills are not timetabled is to spread nonsense. In the Committees on which I have served in opposition, those that have been well run—the majority—have proceeded with a clear allocation of time that has been well in everyone's mind, and there has been adherence to it. There have been very few filibusters on the Bills with which I have been involved. It is dangerous for the House to try to change its procedure because in any one Session there have been one or two Bills on which there have been filibusters as opposed to genuine attempts to scrutinise.
I use what is now the Education Reform Act 1988 as an example of a Bill that was slammed through the House, including its consideration in Committee, with all its warts remaining. The Government made no attempt to modify it, and they are now paying the penalty. I hope that the Government will not introduce more guillotine motions and that even at this late stage they will say that they want a proper Bill for further and higher education, and they want a proper scrutiny. The Government have clearly created a major problem for non-vocational further education. It has not been overcome, and it will have to be resolved by introducing further legislation after the general election. It would be far better to bring consideration of the motion to an end and to have proper scrutiny rather than to rush another measure on to the statute book that will quickly have to be amended or repealed.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I have listened with interest to what Labour Members said about the timetable motion. We have already heard from the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that they have very little objection to the vast majority of the clauses on higher education. Articles in the education press say that Labour is offering the Government a deal in respect of putting the Bill on the statute book before the general election. If that is so, very little time will be needed in which to consider the higher education part, and there will be more than enough time in which to discuss matters that I regard as important—for instance, the question of a pay review body for lecturers, which has been raised with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
It is no good saying that we cannot have such a body because quite large sources of funding for universities, colleges and polytechnics are connected with sponsorship, given that, with today's graded posts, it is possible to build into sponsors' contracts agreed amounts representing the salary of the lecturer involved, and also to make sure that the salary keeps with the recommendations of the pay review body. We could and should consider the matter during the passage of the Bill.
There will also be adequate time for us to consider the question of the naming of some polytechnics and, particularly, institutes of higher education. The Government's policy of freeing the polytechnics and institutes of higher education from the control of local authorities has been one of the major successes of Government policy on higher education. Alongside that development, there is the fact that in 1979 one in eight school leavers went into higher education, while today's terrific figure is one in four. That is an increase of 270,000.
It is now only logical to allow those same colleges and polytechnics to consider themselves universities, particularly when we bear in mind that they are now


degree-awarding institutions. I shall seek—and no doubt will find, in the time available—an opportunity to make a special plea for Edge Hill institute of higher education in Ormskirk, in my constituency, to be allowed to adopt the title of university college. I have expressed that view to the Secretary of State, and I hope that he will give it serious consideration.
The important part of the Bill on which the timetable motion will have an impact deals with the further education colleges' becoming independent free-standing institutions and having their own funding council. Clearly, following the success of the polytechnics' independence, that is a logical extension of the policy and the time available should be directed towards discussion of the matter.
Especially important is a problem that we face in Lancashire which has been brought about by the Bill and which—as a consequence—the timetable motion actually helps. I would go so far as to say that what Lancashire county council is doing makes it essential that the Bill is debated in full and passes into law. I refer to the fact that the council is behaving as if the Bill were already on the statute book. Despite representations made by Conservative county councillors, it has cut from its budget £4 million in grants and fees for adult students going into full-time further education. Representations have been made on the finance committees to reduce that cut, and there have been alternative suggestions—for instance, that £265,000 should be taken from administration or £160,000 from that sacred cow of the Labour party in Lancashire, Lancashire Enterprises Ltd. Unfortunately, a blind eye has been turned on that. The livelihoods and futures of 900 FE students in Lancashire are being deliberately ignored and abused by the Lancashire county council Labour group.
This is one of the meanest cuts ever to have been made in local government expenditure—from a local authority with a budget of more than £1 billion which could afford to make cuts elsewhere to save the education of 900 FE students. However, the local authority is not prepared to do that, which is a great shame upon it.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Hind: I give way to the apologist for the Labour group on Lancashire county council, the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman did not vote against the local government finance Bills that have led to the capping and the potential capping of county councils such as Lancashire. He voted for those measures to control Lancashire county council's total spending and that of every other authority. That authority is being forced to cut the budgets of colleges in his constituency and in mine because he voted for the budgets to be cut. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends alone bear the responsibility for what is happening in Lancashire. There is no way in which the hon. Gentleman can get out of that, and his electors understand that all too well.

Mr. Hind: I totally reject what the hon. Gentleman says. He should look at parallel authorities, such as Hampshire and Cheshire and other well-run Conservative authorities, which manage such funding from within their budgets and which are not facing the same problems

because they are not profligate, spend, spend, spend authorities. The hon. Gentleman should advise the Labour group on the county council to think again on behalf of those 900 students—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Hind: I give way to my hon. Friend—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Perhaps we should return to the allocation of time motion.

Mr. Hind: You are right to call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I return to the question why the timetable motion is vital. During our discussions, we shall have to look for ways to help those students. They will certainly not get that help from Lancashire county council because that authority will not do anything about their problem.
I speak also on behalf of the 10 FE colleges in Lancashire, including Skelmersdale college, that are affected because, although the budgets of those colleges will be greater under the funding council that is proposed in the Bill, the formula that will follow in years to come may be affected because the very students whom we wish to help by funding their grants and fees may not be able to get the assistance to take up their places in the future, which will mean empty places and wasted funds.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend believe that there will be time, under the timetable, to discuss the fact that, although our colleges of further education and our adult education sector take only 15 per cent. of the county's education spending, 65 per cent. of the cuts will be inflicted on that sector? I repeat: although that sector accounts for only 15 per cent. of education expenditure, it is being asked to take 65 per cent. of the cuts.

Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Clearly, the time that is to be made available will enable us to discuss that matter.
It is also important for the Committee to consider the fact that, since the introduction of an FE formula for the FE sector, the budget of the FE college at Skelmersdale in my constituency increased in the first year by 40 per cent. and by 20 per cent. last year. That is the result of central Government intervention, which is being built on by the Bill. It is another important reason why the timetable motion should be passed and our consideration of the Bill should proceed.
I hope that the time provided by the timetable motion will give us an opportunity to discuss the position of the deaf students who will be attending FE colleges following the passage of the Bill. Lecturers in FE colleges who deal with the deaf have expressed their concern to ensure that their students are properly funded and cared for. I hope that that issue, along with adult education, will be dealt with.
It seems to me from the attitude of Lancashire that the Labour party is saying to itself that the timetable motion and the Bill are bound to go through and therefore it will act accordingly. It is almost planning for the future as if it will not win the general election anyway. It accepts that the Conservatives will be returned to the House and that the Bill will be the pillar of further education in the future. Therefore, we ought to give it a fair wind.
The only thing that I would say to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) is that I hope that, when we debate motions such as this in the future, Opposition Front Benchers, who will inevitably be Labour Members, will read all his speeches on guillotine motions and use them as a model. Undoubtedly, we shall hear them for many years to come from the Opposition Dispatch Box.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I wish to speak against the guillotine motion because I am worried that there was not enough time in the Second Reading debate, and there will not be sufficient time in Committee, to discuss some of the important issues in the Bill.
The Bill covers a wide range of further education and higher education institutions. There may well be a consensus on some of them, but the Bill is so wide that I cannot see how the issues about which there is anxiety can be given the hearing and debate that they deserve. Nor will it be possible to take into account the representations which all Members of Parliament have received, particularly on adult education.
An example of a matter on which I do not believe that there will be adequate discussion is sixth form colleges. The John Leggott sixth form college in Scunthorpe has a first-class reputation. It has done well under local authority control. There is bewilderment about why such a successful education institution has to be taken away from the local education authority and put into central Government care and control. We know that the reason is not that it will make education any better. The reason is the poll tax and the desire to reduce local government expenditure by taking a set of budget headings under central Government control.
Several issues which affect sixth form colleges need to be considered, and I doubt whether there will be time to consider them under the timetabling. They include the lack of responsibility for local strategic planning which will result from greater centralised control of education; the mechanisms that will be used by the funding councils to determine the level of funding for local sixth form colleges; who will decide and control the curriculum of sixth form colleges; and the developments within individual institutions. These are matters of great concern to the staff in my local sixth form college. They see no educational benefits in being taken away from local authority control.
Many hon. Members raised the subject of adult education. There are issues of real concern about adult education. I still have not heard Ministers explain to the House why organisations such as Humberside adult education service, a large and successful organisation, will have to go through the FE colleges to obtain funding for their vocational sector. That seems to undermine the principle of a successful scheme. Many thousands of adult education students do not see the benefit or logic of taking part of adult education away from LEAs, thus splitting it and undermining it.
Why cannot the Government allow large institutions such as Humberside adult education service to bid in its own right to the funding councils to ensure that it can continue in its own successful way?
A number of concerns have been mentioned to me. One issue influences me most of all, and I doubt whether there will be time to discuss it properly in Committee. A

successful adult education service works on a devolved basis. Within my constituency many smaller towns and villages benefit from such a service. It provides a wide range of services, qualifications and courses. Under the proposals in the Bill, that service stands to lose approximately half its courses and half its staff. Yet it will be expected to continue to maintain the same level of infrastructure, comprising colleges and centres around the county, especially in the rural areas.
Women will be the main losers from the changes. One of the advantages of an adult education service which operates in villages and small towns is that it is convenient for women, many of whom wish to improve their qualifications and return to work, to attend courses near their homes.
Humberside adult education service also provides crèche facilities for many courses. That facility is also likely to be undermined by the approach in the Bill.
I do not wish to criticise the local further education college because it also does a good job. The relationship between the college, the adult education service and the sixth form college is very good. It is fortunate that, with Humberside education authority under Labour control, we have such a good record on education in the county that local institutions have been so successful.
However, I am concerned that, because of the timetabling of the Bill, there is a suggestion that the Government will be unwilling to accept any amendments, because if they do the Bill will have to go back to the other place and there will be a risk of delaying it. I strongly urge the Government to listen to the representations that they are receiving and will receive from thousands of students of adult education.
I am pleased that some Conservative Members have also suggested, succinctly and eloquently, to the Government that there is a risk of damaging a first-rate service simply because they have not given enough thought to adult education. It is a victim of their drive to tinker about with the education service, for no good reason, and of their hatred of local government. I do not understand why they hate local government so much. It is not a party matter—they hate Conservative, Liberal and Labour authorities alike. At least they are consistent in their dislike of local government.
Local government has done a good job in education. It is close to the people it serves, and local people put it there to ensure that it delivers that service. All over the world centralised structures are being broken down, but the Government are more intent on taking away devolved accountability and moving towards a centralised, bureaucratic structure, which will not deliver the same levels of service and will not be responsive to local people's needs.
The Bill is fatally flawed and undermines the principle of adult education and the provision of a certain level of service for thousands of people who depend upon it. If the Government do not allow proper discretion in Committee and do not accept a reasonable amendment to allow adult education services to bid separately, the choice will be clear to the people. If the Government will not do it for them, the forthcoming Labour Government most certainly will, and people will know how to mark their ballot papers.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: The Opposition know that I am a fair person; I shall not speak at great length. I appreciate that, when an Opposition is faced with a large Government majority, often the only weapon that they have is time.
When Bills are debated, often so much time is taken up on the earlier clauses that, unfortunately, there is insufficient time to study later clauses that are equally important. The Bill is of great importance to education and therefore it is right that we should have a timetable which ensures that sufficient time is available to discuss each clause sensibly and in depth. That also means that hon. Members on each side of the House may call upon the Secretary of State and his ministerial team to give specific assurances or undertakings.
We are seeking the pursuit of excellence, because without it we will be unable to compete with the rest of the world. Therefore, the Government are concentrating their attention on those vocational and academic courses that lead to national certification. That is the only way in which we will be able to compete, educationally, with the rest of the world.
In common with some Opposition Members, I am anxious about community education, so I need enough time to discuss it. I am worried about whether LEAs will have sufficient funds to enable important community classes to continue without the need for high subscription charges. Recreational and leisure courses give people self-esteem, they get people out of the house, and they have an important social function. Often such courses give people the self-confidence to undertake more vocational courses, and I want enough time to receive assurances from the Government about their future.
Littleborough and Saddleworth are covered by the two boroughs of Oldham and Rochdale, and they are worried about the Bill. About 20,000 people in each borough undertake leisure and recreational courses, and long may they continue to do so. My right hon. and learned Friend has given us reassurances about those courses, but it is important that there is sufficient funding to ensure that they continue.
I appreciate that, in many cases, the Opposition play fair and that they do not take up time unnecessarily in Committees. However, I am sure that the Opposition also appreciate, and probably accept, that, on occasion, time is the only weapon left to them, especially when faced by a large Government majority. Therefore, they seek to frustrate legislation with which they are not too pleased by taking up all the available time. Often that means that we end up in a mess because we have only one and a half hours to debate remaining clauses which we need more time to consider. Therefore, a timetable is common sense.
I do not want to say any more because I wish to be fair to the Opposition. I believe that the Bill is most important and that, therefore, it is right to ensure that we set aside enough time for each of its clauses to be considered in depth.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I do not believe that the comments of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) on the guillotine motion were appropriate.
Anyone in the Strangers Gallery who listened to the debate leading up to the vote at 10 pm would be entitled to think that the purpose of the guillotine motion was to prevent Conservative Back Benchers from having the time of their lives by attacking the Bill and expressing the strength of public feeling that exists in the county seats that they mainly represent.
It will prevent them from outlining the destruction that the Bill may wreak on the provision of adult education and further education in their areas. This is the first time that one could interpret the imposition of the guillotine as a means of preventing Conservative Members from having their say about a piece of last-minute Conservative legislation. I am sure that anyone who heard the earlier debate would agree that that is a fair conclusion to reach.
It is important to consider the perils of rushing through the legislation by imposing a timetable. We should remember that such timetables inevitably mean that consideration of legislation is rushed. That means that one forgets to consider how the Bill fits in with other existing legislation on further and higher education. We have been asked to rush the Bill through without attempting to debug the problems that it will raise. Therefore, one ends up with a legislative Molotov cocktail. That cocktail is aimed at the heart of my constituency for rare, if not unique, reasons.
I have in my constituency a building of which I have fond memories. The count was held there when I was first elected. It used to be called Llandaf tech, part of what was the South Glamorgan institute of higher education, recently renamed the Cardiff institute of higher education. Most of those with whom I was at school went there, after leaving school at 15 to do apprenticeships and so on, on their day release and for night school studies.
Within the Cardiff institute of higher education are a large number of further education students. One effect of rushing through legislation such as this is that we shall shortly be introducing a split between further and higher education. The Cardiff institute has four campuses, but the biggest problem concerns the one in my constituency. There are 900 FE students and 40 members of staff teaching them, making it equivalent to an average FE college. So it is a college within a college—a college of FE that is housed in an HE institution.
Rushing the Bill through without considering the side effects will result, next September, in those 900 students and 40 members of staff being in serious danger of being out on the street. They will have nowhere to go and no alternative premises.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Really!

Mr. Morgan: The Secretary of State may screw up his nose at that, but I assure him that I am describing the situation. Negotiations are taking place between civil servants at the Welsh Office—as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales will confirm—the two colleges, including the nearest FE college, and the county council.
I will explain how this unusual situation has come about and why the Secretary of State must give more thought to the Bill to ensure that all the problems are out of the way before the Government start shovelling legislation off the back of a lorry in this way before the election, without considering the plight of 900 students


and 40 members of staff who are in serious danger of being homeless. We are talking of a college with no name, as it were, but it will soon be a college with no home.
Most places have an adequate network of FE colleges, but we in South Glamorgan have not. We have only two, and they are at each end of the county. There is not one in my area, so the central section of South Glamorgan—having a population, including bits of other constituencies, of 150,000 to 200,000—is without an FE college. When the FE students are brought out of the Cardiff institute of higher education, consider what will happen.
Obviously, the institute will not want to house those students any longer because to fulfil the funding requirements of this measure, if it is not amended—and we shall not have time to consider such issues under the guillotine—all the FE students will have to leave, Where will they go? In most other areas, they would go into an FE institution nearby. What happens if, as in my area, there is not one nearby?
The Bill also has the effect of removing all co-ordination between the LEA and the FE colleges and HE institutions. Up to now, all of them being under the same management, they could easily integrate. South Glamorgan county council's education department could say "We appreciate why the institute of higher education wants to get the 900 FE students and 40 members of staff out, so we will lease a temporary building to the institute, or to Barry college of further education, to house this college within a college." 
But as soon as the council says that, the Welsh Office replies, "In that case, it will be a building used for further education, and as soon as you lease it to us, we will grab it and pass it over to the FE funding council." That will happen because the Bill has not had adequate debate. That will seriously increase the danger of 900 students and 40 members of staff on courses such as plumbing, catering and hairdressing, enabling young men and women to enter vocational courses, perhaps finding themselves out in the middle of Western avenue doing their work because there is nowhere for them to go. Western avenue is a lovely dual carriageway bypass, but it is no place to begin one's further education.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: That is obviously a Welsh Office problem and the hon. Gentleman will no doubt correspond with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office. However, I do not understand why the further education part of the college is being thrown out, as the hon. Gentleman fears. It is not unusual for higher and further education to be combined in various parts of the United Kingdom. Nene college at Nuneaton combines higher and further education, and the funding arrangements in the Bill will accommodate continued funding for both parts of its activities. Nene college has existed under the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council for some years, and has also accommodated the funding of its further education.
The hon. Gentleman will have to give more details about why somebody has decided to throw the college off its site before the Welsh Office can respond adequately, as it will no doubt do in due course. I can see no rational reason why the college should appear to be in such a stark crisis.

Mr. Morgan: I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who is sitting next to the Secretary of State

now, can confirm that his civil servants have been negotiating with the education department of South Glamorgan county council and the two colleges—the present Cardiff institute of higher education and the Barry college of further education—for several months to devise temporary and permanent solutions, such as a temporary annexe to house students.
It is up to the Secretary of State to explain his legislation, but I understand that civil servants have been devoting time to the problem, and I presume that they would not do so if it was not a problem. With the advantages of their education and qualifications, and the firm leadership of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, they would have solved the matter in five minutes flat.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Who owns the property, and why have the owners—I presume that it is an authority—taken it into their collective head to throw the college off the site?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not the right moment to debate the matter. The hon. Gentleman was saying that he thought that time should be available to debate the matter. It should not be debated now.

Mr. Morgan: I have gone to enormous lengths, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to avoid offending the strictures of speaking on a guillotine motion as distinct from a substantive Bill.
Without adequate time, the Secretary of State is liable to fall into the trap of waiving problems, as he is now trying to do, rather than seriously studying them. He tries to pretend that the problem does not exist, even though it obviously does. The attempt by civil servants from the Welsh Office to find a solution to it proves that there is a serious problem. We have about six months to avert disaster to the foundations of vocational further education in my county, and particularly my constituency, unless the Government find a way to ensure that the Bill is adequately debated long before it has any chance of becoming the law under which education must operate.

Mr. Clarke: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman and get us back into order. The hon. Gentleman obviously does not know the cause of that great problem. I accept his assurance that civil servants at the Welsh Office do, and I assure him that he will receive a reply in due course from my hon. Friends the Minister of State or the Under-Secretary of State, whose Parliamentary Private Secretary is on the Bench listening to the debate.

Mr. Morgan: The Secretary of State is doing his best to waive the problem. I think that I know what is wrong with the Bill, but it is not my job to explain the legislation to the House. I understand that the consequences of the Bill will combine with other recent legislation, which is why I referred to a legislative Molotov cocktail aimed at the heart of further education in my constituency. The dual effect of the so-called autonomy of further and higher education colleges, combined with the funding arrangements for higher education, will mean that, to make their buildings pay, higher education colleges must fill them with students of higher education. They will therefore have to remove further education students as quickly as possible, preferably by next September, from their present buildings.
Normally, that would not pose a problem, but in areas without a full network of FE colleges it does. My constituency is outstandingly short of FE institutions. It


does not matter whether they can be integrated under the local authority. Given that there is a firm separation between the school sector, which is still in local authority ownership, and the new further and higher education colleges, which are autonomous and report to the further education funding council for Wales and the higher education funding council for Wales, all three institutions will now be separate. The Government have not thought ahead to the consequences in areas such as Cardiff, West, where there is no place of further education half-empty or with a little spare capacity which could absorb the transfer courses from the higher education institutions where FE is taught on the same campus as HE.
I can assure the Secretary of State that that poses a problem that we do not have long to solve. I am horrified that the Bill will be rushed through when it is on the point of creating serious problems.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that I am not responsible for education at the Welsh Office; that is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. He is unwell this evening, so I am sitting in listening to the debate. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will draw his remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention. He will get a full letter on the subject, and my right hon. Friend will undoubtedly discuss the matter with him.

Mr. Morgan: In that case, I am happy to draw my remarks to a close. Obviously the Under-Secretary is taking a different attitude from that of the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The hon. Gentleman suspects that there is a problem, whereas the Secretary of State does not accept that but tries to wave the issue away as though it does not exist, even though Welsh civil servants have been heavily engaged in trying to figure out the problem.
There are no transitional arrangements for easing the path of FE work as it moves out of fully integrated local authority control into the autonomous, semi-independent institutions of which the Government are so fond. The Government do not realise that sometimes there are not the buildings. Sometimes, any offers by the county council to provide funding are rejected or constructively suggested with a "Yes, fine—you spend the £2 million in South Glamorgan, and we will take over the new asset that you are about to create." That is a wholly inadequate response. Obviously it would be financially irresponsible of the county council to spend £2 million of its own money only to have the further education funding council for Wales say, "Thank you very much, we will grab it and use it for ourselves." 
The problem must be solved. Without its solution, the Government will stand condemned of having destroyed the foundations of further education in south Glamorgan and, in particular, my constituency.

Mr. Derek Enright: It grieves me that in the self-styled mother of Parliaments I should see not the Secretary of State, his two hirelings, or some rebellious Back-Bencher, but the Leader of the House himself attempt matricide. For what reason does he have his hands

bloodied?—for a Bill that is, to say the least, cheap and ill-thought-out and that should not be appearing before the House.
The Secretary of State has shown on every occasion possible his ignorance and lack of concern about education. On this occasion he has done so not even for reasons of ideology. In a sense, I could excuse the timetable if he had ideological reasons for doing what he wants to do, but it is sheer prejudice. It is his paranoia about local government, to which he returns time and again. This is a cheap way of saving a little money.
We know that the relationship between adult and further education has been nurtured not by central Government but by local government of both political complexions. Let me mention the old West Riding, when it was under Conservative control, and the work that it pioneered in further education and adult education. It was careful work, because it demanded that one put together in a delicate way the relationship between the two. As with the distinction between pure and applied, the distinction between adult education and FE is very fine indeed; and one merges with the other. The way in which the Secretary of State is proposing to deal with them, in the most cavalier fashion, means that he is intent upon destroying their spirit. He has not, for example, thought out carefully the funding of adult education, and the special experiments that have been started by local government, not by his Department, which are succeeding and which are adding quality to people's lives.
I am thinking, for example, of the Castleford women's centre in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), which also serves my constituency, and the pioneering work that it has done. It has become part of the community, is helping in reducing juvenile crime and is running a range of positive courses which contribute to the members' own satisfaction. All that is being put heedlessly at risk. It is also geared to New college, which is a sixth form college, quite different from the existing further education college, to which it is also allied. It has an intricate relationship with the University of Leeds, the sixth form college and the college of further education.
The Secretary of State does not understand what he is doing with this Bill, and he never will, because he wishes to push it through without the evidence being put before him. We know what the Secretary of State does with evidence. If it is inconvenient to him, he suppresses it, as he has done with this Bill. He will not publish; he refuses to publish. That is typical of the way in which he approaches something which is of value to society, because he does not recognise its value; he thinks only, as Oscar Wilde would say, of its price.
Therefore, we must reject the Bill. We have to make sure that we can properly examine what is being done in further education and adult education so that we may save for future generations the gems which the Minister wishes heedlessly to destroy.

Mr. Rupert Allason: As a matter of principle, I am opposed to all timetable motions because I regard them as a negation of the democratic process. I had intended to make my point in an intervention in the speech


of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind). I will be brief, because I understand that there are Opposition Members who want to speak.
My concern is fourfold. I have community colleges in my constituency, and it is my belief that such colleges demand and earn the respect of all people. They are extremely important and they offer an extremely good service to the community.
My worry is whether, by passing this guillotine motion, we shall reduce the amount of time that can be spent in examining whether under this Bill community colleges in rural areas such as Devon will be disadvantaged in comparison with similar colleges elsewhere in metropolitan areas, where I accept that there is a certain degree of competition between the colleges. Anxiety has been expressed to me about the composition of the regional councils. I hope that setting a timetable will not make it impossible to examine not only the structure of the regional councils but their composition. Who exactly will sit on the councils? 
I do not regard the Bill as an attack on local education authorities or, indeed, on local democracy, but it is important that we take time to examine every aspect of the funding councils to ensure that we are not abandoning local education authorities in favour of what is in effect a pig in a poke. There is certainly great anxiety about funding, because until now it has been an easy option to cut adult education and non-vocational courses in the colleges. They have been an easy target in the past. If one of the Bill's objectives is to steady or perhaps increase funding of the colleges, it will gain my support. However, I am concerned about the future of community courses, especially in Devon, and when the Minister replies I urge him to give an undertaking that the aspects of the Bill that I have highlighted will not be disadvantaged by the passing of the guillotine motion.

Mr. Edward O'Hara: I shall address the substantial points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). He spoke about two matters, the first of which was the danger of hasty legislation and how it eventually catches up with us. The second was the danger of forcing such a tight timetable on legislation that important lobby organisations with much valuable advice to offer do not have time to give that advice. He gave various examples of such legislation but failed to mention the most recent example of a guillotined Bill, the Education (Schools) Bill. The Opposition remain convinced that that Bill contains many chickens waiting to come home to roost. Examples are the quality control of privatised inspectors, the possibility of cosy relationships between inspectors and the schools that hire them, the possibility of inspections going wrong and the question of what happens if a school finds itself in trouble at an awkward point in the cycle of inspections.
In Committee, we argued exhaustively about a range of issues, but none of our advice was accepted, and we are convinced that an ill-thought-out Bill is on its way into law. I have here a document that ilustrates not only that point but the difficulty faced by important lobby organisations in trying to give advice during the passage of the Bill. It is a briefing document from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of Universities in the United Kingdom, and I saw it on my board this afternoon

as I was coming into the Chamber for Second Reading. It was marked urgent, which is indicative enough, and it draws urgent attention to clauses 68 and 81. When I read what had been referred to, it seemed that clause 66 and not clause 68 was the relevant one. That illustrates the haste with which this august body, the CVCP, had to produce the briefing document.
Clause 68—I think that that is the one that was meant —is of horrendous significance. The report of the debate on the clause in the other place in early February covered 27 columns of Hansard, and amendments were made on Third Reading. The clause refers to the terms and conditions attached to grants made to, and from, the funding councils. That is of great importance.
There is an overt intention in the clause that the Secretary of State should be able to attach terms and conditions to the grants made available to the funding councils. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals does not object to the general application of such a clause, but it finds some difficulties, and here is something that strikes at the heart of the integrity of the higher education system. The difficulties arise when it comes to the matters on which the Secretary of State is able to lay down terms and conditions and the extent to which he can override the funding councils' discretion to release funds to individual institutions. He can make exceptional determinations in relation to individual institutions.
The Department of Education and Science, I am told by the CVCP, stated that the Secretary of State thought that he had those powers under the Education Reform Act 1988, but this has been put in doubt by judgments of counsel. The DES claimed that it was always intended that the powers of the Secretary of State should be used in that way, but the previous Secretary of State gave a categoric assurance:
I have no intention of using my power to attach conditions to influence the allocation of funds to individual institutions. That is properly a matter for the Funding Councils." [Official Report, Standing Committee J, 16 February 1988; c. 1446.]
He gave a similar assurance on 24 March, but I will not burden the House by reading the full text of that assurance. It reiterated what he had said earlier.
At no time during the passage of the Education Reform Bill were such intended uses of the powers discussed with the CVCP. Representatives of the CVCP's views argued this clause through 27 columns of the Official Report of the House of Lords, such was the importance that they attached to the principle. They managed to get an amendment, which I shall read to the House. Clause 68 says:
The Secretary of State may make grants to each of the councils of such amounts and subject to such terms and conditions as he may determine.
Then we come to the amendment:
The terms and conditions subject to which grants are made by the Secretary of State to either of the councils—
(a) may in particular impose requirements to be complied with in respect of every institution, or every institution falling within a class or description specified in the terms and conditions … before financial support of any amount or description so specified is provided by the council in respect of activities carried on by the institution".
As the CVCP says,
Subsection 2(a) of the clause is now worthy of the Plain English Society's gobbledegook prize and the CVCP's lawyers advise that it could still be used by ministers to interfere with individual institutions or groups of institutions.


The CVCP still regards the issue as not yet having been satisfactorily determined.
It is evident to me from the debate on Second Reading and from many contributions in this debate that the first eight sittings of the Committee will be more than adequately occupied by the business of clauses 1 to 14 and schedule 2. There will be no spare time in those sittings to allocate to business on the 70 or so other clauses.
I know that it has been said that the Opposition accept many of the Bill's provisions for higher education. I am happy to agree with that, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) said that he smelt a rat. I am sure that the dramatic pointing of his arm was a rhetorical and not a demonstrative gesture. I, too, smell a rat—in clause 66. I wonder how many other rats should be smelt out but will not be because the time available is inadequate to scrutinise the details of the Bill.
The CVCP says that it is claimed that clause 81 is
a power of last resort to provide for a proper level of accountability for public money.
That is an important issue of principle in the way that we conduct the business of the House. At the moment, these powers are subject to the negative procedure, and the CVCP, and I am sure all responsible Members of Parliament, regards it as important that such powers be subject to affirmative resolution.
All this shows that, if the guillotine motion is agreed, the time allocated to the Bill will be inadequate to allow debates on the many important issues in it that need still to be examined. I offer the Secretary of State some advice. There is a story in Greek mythology that Odysseus, when he came home after 10 years of warfare in Troy and 10 years of tribulation and storm at sea, and decided that he wanted some peace, took an oar from his ship and walked inland. When, eventually, a local said to him, "What are you doing carrying a winnowing fan on your shoulder?" he decided that there was the place to settle down in peace.
Many teachers, at all levels, who are suffering under the Government would dearly love to walk inland wearing their mortarboards and stop when someone offered to buy them so that they could be used to plaster walls. My advice to the Secretary of State is that he roll up this Further and Higher Education Bill and walk away with it. When, eventually, someone comes up to him in agitation and asks him why he is carrying round—I will not be polite and call it a toilet roll, but will call it something even more insulting—a Tory tabloid newspaper, he should then take out the Bill, look at it and re-examine its purpose and its value.

Mr. Harry Barnes: As this is supposed to be a debate, I shall refer to three speeches from Tory Members, although none of those who made them is here to listen to any debating points that I may make.
The first is the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), who claimed that the advantage of the timetable motion was that the Bill could be chopped up into little bits, thereby allowing adequate time to consider each item. If he examined the motion, he would discover that it is not like that at all, and that it is possible for 96 clauses and eight schedules to be dealt with on 26 February, finishing at 9.30 pm

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): The hon. Gentleman might like to know that the precise timetabling was arranged at the request of the Opposition, who asked that 80 per cent. of the available time should be spent on the first 14 clauses.

Mr. Barnes: It is quite possible to provide a considerably longer period and still allocate 80 per cent. of the time to those clauses. If more days were available in advance of the remaining 20 per cent. of the time, the matters to which I have referred would be much more likely to be brought up.

Mr. Haynes: What my hon. Friend is saying may fit a rumour that is flitting around the House. The rumour, which I heard last night, is that the Government are considering going to the country before 9 April. In fact, it goes further; it says that they will go without a Budget. If my hon. Friend thinks about that, he will see the need for this timetable. [Laughter.] As I speak, a member of the Cabinet is laughing his head off. There is something going on. As I told my hon. Friend earlier, there is a rat in this Chamber, and it is running around like hell.

Mr. Barnes: Obviously, my hon. Friend has smelt two rats.
The second contribution to which I want to refer was that of the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), who said that there was no great dispute over part II of the Bill, which deals with higher education. So far as the end of the binary divide is concerned, that is certainly true, but it is an argument for excluding part II from the provisions of the timetable. Part II could be considered seriously and at greater length.
The Transport and Works Bill was not divided upon. When that measure went into Committee, some time was spent on it, and a considerable number of amendments emerged. Although Members wanted to improve it, there was no division about the general principles. In the case of this Bill, a similar situation could be created if a particular element of it were excluded from the timetabling arrangements.
The third Member to whom I want to refer is the Leader of the House, who said that he was in favour of automatic timetabling. I am afraid that we might be pushed into automatic timetabling, the abolition of Friday sittings, and a rising time of 7 pm. In those circumstances, what would 650 Members do, especially if Committee debate were timetabled? Perhaps the number of Members would have to be greatly reduced. I can envisage difficulties. If each Member were to have a constituency twice as big as his current one, he would need better facilities.
We are now in a silly season, when electioneering is to the fore in the House. I realise that, in one sense, what goes on in the House is a continuation of the hustings. It is right that it should be so, but I am concerned about the extent and the triviality of such debate. The extended campaigning gives rise to certain legislative worries.
We are faced with two extremes. Either business is rushed, as this Bill is being rushed, to fit in with some future timetable, or we scrape around for things to do in the remaining time, and the Government often put matters forward simply as part of a media circus that is organised elsewhere—a circus in which the Government present the issues that form the basis of their campaign.
Rushed debates led to the farce of the council tax, and now further and higher education are threatened by a timetable motion. The Government must have strong reasons for wishing to impose a guillotine at such an early stage. As I have said, we move from one extreme to the other, with the result that many Members have lost interest in what is taking place in the House. Last night, for example, without the Democratic Unionist and Ulster Unionist parties coming to the Government's rescue, they would have lost their Northern Ireland industrial relations order.
It seems fantastic that we are considering a guillotine motion on of all things a Further and Higher Education Bill. Surely a well-organised society should look towards further and higher education. It should see the education process from nursery education on to primary and secondary education and onwards as something that is preparing people for later stages in their life, when they can fully develop within further and higher education.
Education cannot be rushed, despite what the Government think. They think, for example, that at Ruskin college and Northern college, two-year courses can be chopped by one year so that twice as many students can pass through the system, with results that are twice as good. By chopping courses in two we kill that which existed. It is not half of a two-year course that takes place in one year, because the second year is based considerably on what took place in the first. Education cannot be confined to modules and rushed forward. People need time to mature within education institutions, provisions and arrangements.
That principle should apply to the consideration of education legislation, and especially that which is directed to further and higher education. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State talked for a while about the principles and philosophy of education. He suggested that people move into and out of education and back again, and that there was a continuing process. He said that that was extremely beneficial. If he is to adhere to that approach, there should be serious consideration of a measure that will attract masses of representations.
When we deal with education, there will always be many outside with backgrounds in education who will send briefs and write letters to us. They will wish to acquaint us with their views, and they tend to be among the most articulate members of our society. They have many important ideas to present and consideration of education Bills is better when dialectical debate and argument can take place. The outcome is improved understanding.
I doubt whether the Secretary of State fully appreciates what the principles of education should involve from the perspective of democratic socialism, to which I adhere. We should look for three main elements, one of which is individual self-fulfilment. That enables individuals to move into and out of vocational and non-vocational education, for example, to pick up what is beneficial to them at different stages of life. Education is a continuing process, and students and teachers should see themselves as studying together. Are we really producing legislation that will point us in that direction? Given time, could not enough amendments be tabled for us to improve the Bill? 
Secondly, education should supply skills that the population in general can use if we are to become a modern, technologically advanced society, with the social requirements that go with that. Specific skills may be

involved in some instances, but they should operate, and be controlled, within the general pattern of developing a bright population, who are given an opportunity to study the subjects that grab them.

Mr. Haynes: My hon. Friend has given this matter real consideration. I know the contribution that he has made to the education system over many, many years.
The population of this nation are now living far longer. Many of my constituents who have retired and are now on pensions wish to educate themselves further, and that is something that we should address on the Floor of the House and in Committee. Conservative Members are not bothered; they are pushing the Bill through like nobody's business. I give credit to the hon. Members who have spoken against the Bill tonight: they are being honest with themselves, and with their constituents.
We shall need time for a proper debate in Committee. In tonight's debate, I have heard no mention of the group of elderly people in our nation who wish to educate themselves further. Some, indeed, would want to enter higher education if they were able to do so. This lot are stopping even that happening, let alone stopping us having an opportunity to debate the Bill properly by tabling this damned timetable motion.

Mr. Barnes: There is a widespread movement in favour of a "university of the third age" for people over 50 who have organised themselves and formed a link with educational institutions. Increasing numbers of retired people will want to develop skills and make use of abilities that have been acquired over a lifetime. We should be able to discuss such matters properly and fully in Committee.
If the Opposition table amendments in Committee, how much time will we have to deal with them? Some items may tie in with part II of the Bill, which deals with higher education; but, as only 20 per cent. of the available time has been devoted to the subject, we may not be able to deal with it adequately.
My third point about the importance of further and higher education relates to the skills that can be developed to allow democratic participation in society. Education is not just for individuals; it does not simply mean that someone is producing something that is economically worth while for the rest of us. It is important because of its collective, participatory, sharing nature. Measures that seek to undermine democratic moves and controls, and the role of local education authorities, seem to me entirely contrary to the spirit of education philosophy. The Secretary of State put his toe in the water on that issue, but he has not sought to develop it. We need much more time to discuss these serious matters before the Bill goes into Committee.

Mr. Jack Straw: This is the second time in two weeks that the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Leader of the House have sought to guillotine education Bills. The Government have no mandate for either Bill and there has been little enthusiasm for either, even from Conservative Members. Indeed, in some respects, there has been extensive Conservative opposition to both Bills. The hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) stated his opposition in uncompromising terms, saying that the Bill "stinks" and that he has no intention of voting for it or for the guillotine


motion. That view was reflected in the speeches of many of his hon. Friends. It is my belief that if there were an opportunity for Conservative Members to vote on the Bill according to their judgment, rather than according to their Whips, the Secretary of State would barely have a majority on his side, let alone in the House as a whole, for the Bill.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said in his fine speech, democracy is about giving rights to those with whom one disagrees. Democracy is about the rights of minorities, as well as of majorities. Democracy withers if the House fails to give a proper opportunity to speak to those who disagree with those who are in power.
The guillotine means that there will be a wholly inadequate opportunity to examine the Bill in Committee and to improve its terms. It is no good the Secretary of State or the Minister of State saying that the Opposition have agreed to the timetable within the overall framework of the guillotine for the allocation of time between clauses. That is correct, but the Secretary of State and the Minister will also confirm that the last thing to which we agreed was this guillotine. They know that very well, and they also know that, if they had sought our agreement to the guillotine, we should never have agreed to one covering five consecutive sittings, spread over two weeks.
Another reason why the measure is unnecessary is that the Minister of State and the Secretary of State have every reason to know that, on every education Bill on which I have served, apart from the very long Education Reform Bill at the beginning of this Parliament, there has been agreement between Opposition and Government about a voluntary timetable for getting Bills out of Committee. If the Government had come to us, there is no reason on earth why we would not have agreed to such a timetable on this Bill.
Another reason why the Bill should be given more time is to give the Secretary of State the time to visit one or two sixth form colleges and further education colleges to find out about the nature of the services that they offer, their relationships with the local authorities and why, contrary to what he thinks, there is extensive opposition to a centralised takeover of further education.

Mr. Eggar: indicated dissent.

Mr. Straw: The Minister of State shakes his head. As at 24 July, the Secretary of State had visited only one further education college and one sixth form college throughout his period in office. There is a—[Interruption.] Well, there is a further education college slap bang in the middle of the Secretary of State's constituency. It is called the South Nottinghamshire further education college. How many times has the Secretary of State visited that college?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have not been there since I have been Secretary of State, but I have visited it and know it well. I visited a sixth form college last Friday. The hon. Gentleman, who has no education policy and little view on most of the Bills that we consider, scratches around in the statistics of my visits. I visited a sixth form college last Friday and another one before Christmas. A poll of principals shows that 62 per cent. agree with us, with only 21 per cent. agreeing with the hon. Gentleman. Having no policy and no clear views of what the Labour party would do, the hon. Gentleman would obviously spend his time as

Secretary of State—if he ever got to that office—swanning around, doing photo-calls, visiting schools and colleges all over the country. We have a job of work to do. All the polls show that the Bill is supported by the principals of the colleges, which are regularly visited by me and by the remainder of my team of Ministers.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has given way and he ought to take a little time while I respond, as he invited me to do, to think about what he is going to say about the guillotine motion and the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State admits that he has not bothered to visit the further education college in his constituency at any time since he became Secretary of State. I will tell him something else. The college in his constituency has no recollection of his having made a visit at any time in the past four years. Indeed, some people cannot remember a visit in the past 10 years.
If the Secretary of State criticises me for visiting schools and colleges, it is a criticism that he should also level at his predecessors, both the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), who is now Lord President of the Council, and the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). To do them justice, they went out to find out what was happening in the education service. The reason why the Secretary of State has made so many errors in education policy, which will damage the Conservative party grievously at the election, is that he does not understand what goes on in the education service—

Mr. Clarke: rose—

Mr. Straw: No, the Secretary of State will have his time to reply.

Mr. Clarke: rose—

Mr. Straw: Sit down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State does not understand the education service. He does not visit it. He takes no notice of it. That is how he blundered into the privatisation of the inspectorate and into dismembering the adult education service. It is also why he is creating a binary divide between further education colleges and sixth form colleges and other sixth form provision at precisely the time that he is adopting Labour party policy to end the binary system in higher education.
In his reply to the Second Reading debate, the Minister of State came out with some puerile nonsense about east European regimes. One of the characteristics of such regimes was that they had weak local authorities and authoritarian central Governments. That sounds to me like a description of this Conservative Administration and where it would like to go. It is also a description of the way in which the Government operate in the dying days of this Administration before the election.
The House knows that there will be inadequate opportunity to debate the detail of the measures on further and adult education within the terms of the guillotine. The only reason that the Government seek to force the guillotine through is the imminence of the general election, which at last the Prime Minister may have the guts to call


by 9 April. The Bill and the guillotine will be one more reason why the Government will be defeated whenever the election comes.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): As everyone has expressed personal views about procedure, may I say that I am not a great supporter of guillotine motions. I do not go so far as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), who said that he was always against them. They are undoubtedly required by all Governments to get essential business through. Personally I am not in favour of timetabling all Bills on all occasions. I have considerable sympathy with the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) and by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who expressed reservations about the sudden rush to reform our procedures.
However, I realise that there are cases in which the timetabling of a Committee's proceedings in due course enables every part of the Bill to be debated at adequate length. Like the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, I find myself from time to time speaking on guillotine motions, although I have never rivalled his record of moving five guillotine motions in a day, as he did when he was Leader of the House.
On some occasions guillotine motions have to be tabled and sometimes they are fiercely contested. As someone who is not keen on guillotine motions, I have found myself replying to two debates on guillotine motions recently. One was on the Education (Schools) Bill, with which the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) dealt at some length. The other is on the Further and Higher Education Bill this evening. They are among the least fiercely contested guillotines that I can remember, and both arose in rather curious circumstances—almost by accident.
Last week we were dealing in a day with the Report and Third Reading of the Education (Schools) Bill for which the Opposition had asked for only one day. It became clear during the course of the evening that some Opposition Members were filibustering but others were not. The Opposition Front Bench appeared to veer round during the evening. It also became clear that the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen did not know why they were filibustering. The result was that we moved a guillotine motion at 10 o'clock in the evening to get back to some sensible discussion and spent two days in the House dealing with the matter compared with the one day which the Opposition had previously asked for.
Today's situation is rather unusual, but it is clear that, with the generous timetable that has been laid down, we can have a more ordered discussion in Committee than we might otherwise have had.
We all know the background. This Parliament has a limited amount of time to run. That has been spotted by the Opposition, who took the unusual step of advertising the fact in The Times Higher Educational Supplement. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) made it clear that the Opposition's intention was that, because of the imminence of the general election, the higher education provisions of the Bill—supported by his party—were on offer, and could be got through. He also made it clear that the further education parts of the Bill would be filibustered

for as long as was necessary to ensure that they did not get through. I cannot think of a clearer invitation—to save everybody from a great deal of wasted time in Committee, debating the sittings motion and initial clauses—to have a timetable motion to allow some orderly debate.

Mr. Fatchett: If the Secretary of State reads my comments in that report, he will see that there is no mention of filibustering on our part. As we said in the debate, we accept the principle of the higher education provisions and we want to debate the further education provisions. There is room for extensive debate on the latter. The Secretary of State seems to be suggesting that, if Members object to any of his provisions, they simply do not have the right to debate them.

Mr. Clarke: I agree that the word "filibuster" was not used by the hon. Gentleman. When I filibustered in opposition, I never described it as filibustering, certainly not in advance of the start of the debate.
In the supplement the hon. Member for Leeds, Central made a noble offer. He said:
We would do all we could to facilitate the dropping of FE clauses, subject to certain objectives concerning quality control and academic freedom in higher education.
I have to warn the Opposition and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who will be serving on the Committee that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has provided a most generous allocation of time. Indeed, it is a staggeringly generous allocation of time, which I confidently predict that the Opposition will have considerable difficulty in filling, because they agree with half the Bill. They are not opposed to the higher education part of the Bill. It is no wonder that they have asked that 80 per cent. of the time should be devoted to the first 14 clauses because they have scarcely made a speech all day about the remaining clauses, which do not concern many hon. Members.
For example, the Opposition have had difficulty in sustaining the debate on the guillotine motion. The hon. Member for Knowsley, South did his duty. He has been speaking frequently on these occasions. He spoke at great length on the Education (Schools) Bill last week. He read an out-of-date brief from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. He got the wrong clause of the Bill—he was using the clause before it was amended in the House of Lords, which, in my experience, falls prey to lobbies easily. But no one there read out the brief—or certainly not an out-of-date brief. That is now clause 68.
The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals' amendment has been accepted. As far as I am aware, it drafted the clause. When I spoke on Second Reading I said that we would not try to reverse it, and that battle is long over. It occupied 15 minutes of the guillotine debate, which was interesting for the record and for future historians, but it did not seem to show that there is a huge number of issues to be debated seriously.
Hon. Members will see from the Order Paper that the debate in Committee will be open-ended for the first four days. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) leapt up to say that, of course, the Government Whip could bring the debate to an end at any time. He would be horrified if I told him that the Government Whip would not do so but would give the Opposition four all-night sittings. They would never be able to sustain that.
I agree that serious issues have been raised about adult education, in particular, and community colleges, which


were adverted to by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and others. I spoke about adult education on Second Reading, and I would be out of order if I were to dilate on our case now. We have not altered the policy on adult education. We have not altered the legal duties of local authorities towards the courses described, and we are not threatening their source of money. Nevertheless, I accept that serious points must be made.
However, I could not accept the seriousness of the oddest point, which was raised by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright). He appeared to believe that all our proposals were something to do with saving money. We are certainly not expanding the provision for further and higher education in anticipation that the cost of that provision will drop.
The powers of the further education funding council and the methods by which it will be possible for community colleges to go first to a further education college and then, perhaps, to that council to look for funds are covered in the initial part of the Bill. The Opposition have, with respect, been sensible in asking that the one knife that is included in the guillotine motion falls where it does.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough remains opposed to the Bill. I hope that our Committee discussions will persuade him because four days will be available for debate on clauses 1 to 14 and schedule 2, which establish the new framework. Therefore, there will be plenty of opportunity for amendments to be tabled and considered on the main clauses concerning the structure of adult education—clauses 3, 5, 6(5), and 11 and schedule 2. The first to the eighth sittings of the Committee are open ended.

Sir John Farr: I realise the opportunity that exists, but it can be of no interest to me unless my right hon. and learned Friend can give me an undertaking that I am likely to be selected to serve on the Committee. I have heard from the usual channels that that is unlikely.

Mr. Clarke: That is not within my gift. I am sure that my hon. Friend's comment has been noted, but, before he volunteers, I should point out to him the amount of time that will be taken up on the Committee. Were all the time described in the motion to be occupied, the members of the Standing Committee would be droping exhausted from the tedium of the repetition of important arguments that we have covered over many hours today.
This is a sensible way to proceed for the reasons that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave. We have our divisions of opinion on the Bill, but they are not as wide as people claim. We are totally agreed on higher education, and hon. Members on both sides of the House want to expand further education. No hon. Member wants to do any damage to adult education, of which we are all in favour. We are arguing about whether it is right to take further education colleges and sixth form colleges out of local government control.
Given the management of the change and the expansion that I have already described, delay can be damaging. The worst thing that can happen to the institutions, which we are all purporting to support, would be another 12 months

of uncertainty, delay, doubt and political debate. The House must debate the issues in a reasonable time, but we simply cannot afford to drag out the debate for ever because it will have an debilitating effect on the institutions.
For reasons of good policy, and in the interests of the education service, for which we have all expressed our support, we should proceed with the Bill with reasonable expedition. The guillotine is generous. It arises in curious circumstances and it is nothing like the ferociously fought guillotines of the past when they right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent really got worked up on the subject, either in support of or in opposition to the guillotine—depending on from which side of the House he spoke. I therefore suggest that the House gives a reasonably peaceful approval to this sensible guillotine motion.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 182.

Division No. 78]
[1.13 am


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Alexander, Richard
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Allason, Rupert
Day, Stephen


Amess, David
Devlin, Tim


Amos, Alan
Dickens, Geoffrey


Arbuthnot, James
Dicks, Terry


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dorrell, Stephen


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Ashby, David
Dover, Den


Aspinwall, Jack
Dunn, Bob


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Baldry, Tony
Dykes, Hugh


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Eggar, Tim


Batiste, Spencer
Emery, Sir Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bendall, Vivian
Evennett, David


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fallon, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Body, Sir Richard
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fookes, Dame Janet


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boswell, Tim
Forth, Eric


Bottomley, Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Franks, Cecil


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Freeman, Roger


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
French, Douglas


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gale, Roger


Brazier, Julian
Gardiner, Sir George


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gill, Christopher


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Buck, Sir Antony
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Budgen, Nicholas
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Burns, Simon
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Burt, Alistair
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Butler, Chris
Gorst, John


Butterfill, John
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carrington, Matthew
Gregory, Conal


Carttiss, Michael
Grist, Ian


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Ground, Patrick


Chapman, Sydney
Hague, William


Chope, Christopher
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Colvin, Michael
Hanley, Jeremy


Conway, Derek
Hannam, Sir John


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Cormack, Patrick
Harris, David


Cran, James
Haselhurst, Alan






Hayes, Jerry
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Groffrey


Hayward, Robert
Pawsey, James


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Porter, David (Wavaeney)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Portillo, Michael


Hill, James
Powell, William (Corby)


Hind, Kenneth
Price, Sir David


Hordern, Sir Peter
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Redwood, John


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rhodes James, Sir Robert


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hunter, Andrew
Roe, Mrs Marion


Irvine, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jack, Michael
Rost, Peter


Jackson, Robert
Rowe, Andrew


Janman, Tim
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Jessel, Toby
Sackville, Hon Tom


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Key, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shelton, Sir William


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shersby, Michael


Knapman, Roger
Sims, Roger


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knox, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Latham, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Squire, Robin


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Steen, Anthony


Lord, Michael
Stern, Michael


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Stevens, Lewis


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Steward, Andy (Sherwood)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stokes, Sir John


Maclean, David
Sumberg, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Summerson, Hugo


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Madel, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maude, Hon Francis
Thornton, Malcolm


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Tracey, Richard


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tredinnick, David


Miller, Sir Hal
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mills, Iain
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Viggers, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Moate, Roger
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Monro, Sir Hector
Walden, George


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Waller, Gary


Moss, Malcolm
Ward, John


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Warren, Kenneth


Nelson, Anthony
Watts, John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wheeler, Sir John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Whitney, Ray


Nicholls, Patrick
Widdecombe, Ann


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wiggin, Jerry


Norris, Steve
Wilkinson, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wilshire, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Page, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas


Patnick, Irvine
Wolfson, Mark


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Wood, Timothy





Yeo, Tim
Tellers for the Ayes:


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. David Lightbown and


Younger, Rt Hon George
Mr. John M. Taylor.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Gould, Bryan


Allen, Graham
Graham, Thomas


Alton, David
Griffiths Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Anderson, Donald
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Grocott, Bruce


Armstrong, Hilary
Hain, Peter


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Hardy, Peter


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy



Barron, Kevin
Haynes, Frank


Battle, John
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Beckett, Margaret
Hinchliffe, David


Beggs, Roy
Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)


Bell, Stuart
Hood, Jimmy


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Benton, Joseph
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hoyle, Doug


Blair, Tony
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Blunkett, David
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Boateng, Paul
Ingram, Adam


Boyes, Roland
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bradley, Keith
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Caborn, Richard
Kumar, Dr. Ashok


Callaghan, Jim
Leadbitter, Ted


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Leighton, Ron


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Carr, Michael
Lewis, Terry


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Litherland, Robert


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Livingstone, Ken


Clelland, David
Livsey, Richard


Cohen, Harry
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Loyden, Eddie


Corbett, Robin
McAllion, John


Cousins, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Crowther, Stan
McCartney, Ian


Cryer, Bob
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cummings, John
McFall, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dalyell, Tam
McLeish, Henry


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McMaster, Gordon


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McWilliam, John


Dewar, Donald
Madden, Max


Dixon, Don
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dobson, Frank
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Doran, Frank
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Martlew, Eric


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Maxton, John


Eadie, Alexander
Meacher, Michael


Eastham, Ken
Michael, Alun


Edwards, Huw
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Enright, Derek
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Morgan, Rhodri


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Morley, Elliot


Farr, Sir John
Murphy, Paul


Fatchett, Derek
Nellist, Dave


Fearn, Ronald
O'Brien, William


Fisher, Mark
O'Hara, Edward


Flannery, Martin
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Flynn, Paul
Patchett, Terry


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pendry, Tom


Foster, Derek
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Foulkes, George
Prescott, John


Fraser, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Fyfe, Maria
Randall, Stuart


Galloway, George
Redmond, Martin


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Reid, Dr John


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Robertson, George


Golding, Mrs Llin
Robinson, Geoffrey


Gordon, Mildred
Rogers, Allan






Rooney, Terence
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Rowlands, Ted
Turner, Dennis


Ruddock, Joan
Vaz, Keith


Sedgemore, Brian
Walley, Joan


Sheerman, Barry
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Short, Clare
Wigley, Dafydd


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Wilson, Brian


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Soley, Clive
Worthington, Tony


Spearing, Nigel
Wray, Jimmy


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Steinberg, Gerry



Stott, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Strang, Gavin
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Straw, Jack
Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

Orders of the Day — Committee

1.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 26th February 1992.

(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on 26th February may continue until 9.30 pm., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 27th February.

2.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated—

(a) shall meet on 18th, 19th, 20th, 25th and 26th February; and
(b) on each of those days shall sit at half-past Ten o'clock and half-past Four o'clock.

(2) The proceedings to be taken on each of those sittings shall be as shown in the second column, and shall be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column, of the following Table:—


TABLE


Sitting
Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


1st
Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2
—


2nd
Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2 so far as not disposed of
—


3rd
Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2 so far as not disposed of
—


4th
Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2 so far as not disposed of
—


5th
Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2 so far as not disposed of
—


6th
Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2 so far as not disposed of
—


7th
Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2 so far as not disposed of
—


8th
Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2 so far as not disposed of
Midnight


9th
Remaining proceedings
—


10th
Remaining proceedings so far as not disposed of
9.30 p.m.

Orders of the Day — Report and Third Reading

3. The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

Orders of the Day — Procedure in Standing Committee

4.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the member who moves, and from a member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

5. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

6. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Orders of the Day — Dilatory Motions

7. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Orders of the Day — Extra time on allotted days

8. If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Orders of the Day — Private Business

9. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Orders of the Day — Conclusion of proceedings

10.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed to the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or that Motion is made by a member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—



(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the beginning to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that motion.

Orders of the Day — Supplemental orders

11.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Orders of the Day — Saving

12. Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which this Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by this Order; or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Orders of the Day — Recommittal

13.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Orders of the Day — Interpretation etc.

14.—(1) In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Further and Higher Education Bill [Lords].

(2) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) and Standing Order No. 103 (Business sub-committees) shall not apply to this Order.

STILL-BIRTH (DEFINITION) BILL [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Still-Birth (Definition) Bill, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under any other enactment, being an increase which is attributable to provisions of that Act altering the meaning of "confinement" for the purposes of statutory maternity pay.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

PETITION

Mr. John Hall

Mr. Keith Vaz: I beg leave to present a petition of some 10,000 signatures on behalf of the case of my constituent, John Hall, who lives at 35 Shetland road, Leicester. Mr. Hall served as a nuclear test veteran on Christmas island in the 1950s. As the House knows, the matter has been raised on several occasions during our proceedings. Some 10,000 people support his claim for compensation. The petition is directed at the Prime Minister in the hope that he will further investigate the claims of Mr. Hall and the other nuclear test veterans.
The petition reads:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House call upon the Prime Minister, John Major, and his Government to act upon his recent pledge to investigate further the claim for compensation along with that of other Christmas Island test veterans for ill health caused by those tests.
Although we recently had a letter from the Prime Minister, the campaign goes on and the petition is presented in support of it.

To lie upon the Table.

Hospitals (Allocation Formula)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Mr. Denis Howell: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise with the Under-Secretary of State for Health the formula for the allocation of funds to hospitals and area health authorities in places of great deprivation. [Interruption.] I do not know what the little conversation on the Government Front Bench is about, but as this is likely to be the last time that I shall speak in an Adjournment debate I should appreciate the attention of the Minister for the Arts as well as the Under-Secretary in this debate.
As I am concerned about Dudley Road hospital, where in the past 12 months I have had three periods of hospitalisation, I get a sense of satisfaction in raising this matter on its behalf. I may be performing a service to it. It carries an enormous weight of care for people in deprived circumstances, and it deserves every possible support. I am glad to pay tribute to the excellence of the work of the surgeons, physicians, nurses and ancillary staff, without whom we would be in serious difficulty in the city of Birmingham.
The debate arises because of the Government's crazy attempt to rationalise health service expenditure in a way that seeks to take money from areas of the greatest deprivation to build up other districts with nothing like similar social problems. As we are talking about the health of thousands of people, that is not only financially unjustified but morally indefensible.
I am concerned about the effect of this recently imposed formula, particularly as it affects West Birmingham health district. I have had correspondence with the Secretary of State about it and I appreciate the courteous way in which he replied, although I am raising this matter now because I am not altogether happy that the situation will be rectified, particularly as it affects Dudley Road hospital.
This matter affects not just hospitals in Birmingham. I understand that other hospitals and health authorities serving inner-city areas of deprivation are equally affected: in Wandsworth, Camberwell, Southwark, central Manchester, north Manchester and Hackney, among others. I learned today that those authorities are coming together at the end of the month to discuss this common problem, which now affects many hospitals and health authorities.
I have to acknowledge that, as a result of recent protests, there have been some changes in the formula concerning births, and I welcome that. There have been adjustments, I am told, to provide a 2 per cent. improvement at Dudley Road hospital. Although that hospital will be 2 per cent. better off under this formula, it will still be 20 per cent. worse off overall. The hospital believes that it will lose £15 million a year, which will be an absolute disaster. Anyone making proposals to take away such a large amount of money from such a hospital must be out of his mind, and I hope that the Government will give urgent consideration to that matter.
As I said, Dudley Road is a wonderful hospital, and it serves an area with the highest deprivation in the country. I have had three spells in the hospital in the past three months and one cannot lie in the vascular surgery ward that I was in without seeing the tremendous devotion of

the staff. There was not one moment when I saw an empty bed. I do not know what the Minister for Health is thinking about when she suggests that people are lingering on unnecessarily in hospital wards. That is totally contrary to my experience.
I do not believe that the Minister who is to reply tonight, and for whom I have a high regard, would ever say such a thing. The only people who ought not to have been in a hospital ward when I was there were people for whom the authorities could find no other place. That is regrettable, but we know that it happens, because we do not have sufficient halfway accommodation to deal with it.
What is this formula, which I can only describe as a lunatic formula? It is based on a 10-year population forecast. That in itself, because of population movements in inner cities, renders it very suspect. It certainly ought not to be the basis on which one then calculates funds for hospitals for the next 10 years. Funding should be based on the known workload of each hospital.
The formula for West Birmingham is estimated according to a 3 per cent. reduction in the size of the population, but the grant now applied to Dudley Road hospital is for a 20 per cent. reduction. That illustrates my point about the stupidity of the formula.
Then there is what has come to be known as the mortality factor, which takes us almost to the crux of the matter. Under the formula, a payment is made to the health authority based on estimated population and age. The authority receives £149 per head for people between 45 and 64. For people between 75 and 85, the amount is £927 per head, while for people aged 85 or above it is ®1,452 per head. I presume that those amounts reflect the fact that people who live to an advanced age are likely to require more medical attention, but as I saw for myself at Dudley Road hospital, that is a complete fallacy.
In deprived areas people die much younger. I was appalled to learn that the majority of deaths in Dudley Road hospital are of people below the age of 65. They die as a result of all sorts of illnesses, which I shall shortly describe, and all the patients suffering from those diseases need considerable care and attention. The cost of looking after them, even though they die at a comparatively early age, is just as great as the cost of looking after more elderly people.
For diabetes, there are 8·1 deaths per 1,000 people in the West Midlands region. In the West Birmingham region, at Dudley Road hospital, the figure is 18·1 per 1,000. That means that the load at Dudley Road is 133 per cent. higher than the average. For tuberculosis, which unfortunately is making a recurrence, there is one death per 1,000 people in the West Midlands region, whereas at Dudley Road the figure is 4·7 per 1,000, which is 370 per cent. above the average.
For liver disease, there are 146·8 deaths per 1,000 in the West Midlands region, but in the Dudley Road hospital area 164·3 people per 1,000 die from such diseases, which is 12 per cent. above the average. For strokes, there are 36·6 deaths per 1,000 in the West Midlands region and 41·4 per 1,000 in the health district covered by Dudley Road hospital, an increase of 13 per cent. on the average. There are 30·9 suicides per 1,000 of the population in the West Midlands region, but the figure for the Dudley Road hospital area is 44·5 per 1,000 which is 44 per cent. above the average.
For gastric cancer, the corresponding figures are 113 and 133 per 1,000 of the population, 20 per cent. higher


than the average. For colon cancers, the figures are 106 and 120 per 1,000, an increase of 14 per cent. For lung cancers, the figures are 97 and 119 per 1,000, an increase of 22 per cent. There are other astonishing and tragic figures. For example, in the Nechells ward in my constituency, the infant mortality rate is 22 per 1,000 live births. That is a terrible figure, and the highest rate in Europe. It grieves me to relate that information at a time when I am about to leave the service of the House.
All that arises from deprivation. Unemployment is well over 30 per cent. I have corresponded with the Secretary of State on the matter and, to be fair, he has not challenged any of the figures. Therefore, I assume that they are accurate and are accepted. What we need, in order to make sure that funds move to where deprivation causes great social and health problems, is some sort of index of deprivation. I am told that there was such an index, called the Jarman formula, which attempted to assess the level of deprivation, and I should like to know why it has been disregarded under this new formula.
West Midlands regional health authority, and particularly its chairman, Sir James Ackers, shares my concern. I have criticised Sir James many times on aspects of health policy, but I must pay tribute to him here: I am sure that he is well seized of the importance of the matter, and he has assured me today that he will do his level best to see that Dudley Road hospital does not lose out in the new formula. For the year 1992–93, because the Government have made some more money available, which I acknowledge, the region has used the extra money to change the formula so that Dudley Road loses no money this year; but there is as yet no guarantee about future years—which is one of the main reasons for this debate. Nor is there any adjustment that can be made internally, as far as I can see, for what I would term the "fairness" factor to come in, so as to allow Dudley Road not only to maintain the present level of funding but to have the sort of increase that it needs for technological and staffing reasons, to keep on all fours with the expansion that may occur at other hospitals, something that seems to me perfectly reasonable. At present, we have a one-year solution.
In Birmingham yesterday the Secretary of State himself was speaking. He was asked about this matter and he told Dr. Iles of Dudley Road hospital, as reported in the Evening Mail, that health managers did not have to be "formula bound". I am pleased to hear that because it is good news for us in the west midlands. We have not been told before that the regions can depart from this national formula. In a way, that itself is a bit of a nonsense, because if regions can depart from the national formula—if they can, I am sure that in the West Midlands region they will do so, to benefit Dudley Road hospital—it must mean that they will have to take money away from other people who currently expect to receive more; there must be a readjustment within the region. Although I welcome what the Secretary of State has said, I hope that he understands the wrath that he will bring down on his head from other hospitals that will find their formula readjusted.
If the Secretary of State is right—I am sure that he is —I must now call on the chairman and members of West Birmingham district health authority to declare at once that they will take advantage of this statement and make it clear that they will readjust their own formulas to take

much greater account of the effects of deprivation as it applies to Dudley Road hospital and West Birmingham health authority than they have done hitherto.
There is one other matter that concerns me, and I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Health is present because I have to take him to task. Although I do not relish the opportunity of doing so, I have to take it. It arises from the speech that he made in replying to the last health debate that we had in the House. In the very last moments of that speech, at about five minutes to 10, he suddenly and with great relish read out a list of hospitals related to the constituencies of his right hon. and hon. Friends, all of which, he told the House to the accompaniment of great cheers from the Government Benches, would benefit from the adjustment of allocations. They all happened to be in marginal Tory seats.
I had not previously put the Minister in the same category as Machiavelli, but as he has exposed himself in that way, I think that we are entitled to ask him for an explanation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): We shall call the right hon. Gentleman's constituency a marginal Tory seat.

Mr. Howell: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would do so if he came to have a look at it. I cannot see any of these unfortunate mothers who are losing their babies at such a rate endorsing the Conservative party in view of that factor.
The reason why the Minister made this extraordinary statement has become apparent to me—it is called development addition. That factor has appeared in the figures of Birmingham regional hospital development board, which makes adjustments. One of the Tory marginal seats to which the Under-Secretary referred was that of Dudley. Under this development addition, Dudley Road hospital, Birmingham, gets an extra £96,000 and Dudley gets £3,138,000. That is disproportionate. The Minister may not have had time to look at this, so perhaps he will write to me about it, because there is considerable concern about development addition, which is one of the matters at which the regional health authority must look when it examines the new opportunities before it.
That is the case that I make tonight on behalf of my constituency and the Dudley Road hospital, of which I was chairman for 12 years and at which I was a patient. I wish to represent them as adequately as I can.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) began his speech by observing that this was likely to be the last occasion on which he addressed the House in an Adjournment debate, so it falls to me to say that the House will miss him when he moves on to other things. My first memories of the right hon. Gentleman were when I was a parliamentary candidate, and he was the expert first in the sun and then in the snow—or the other way around. He was a well-known figure throughout the country.
Tonight, the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the fact that he has a long history of interest in the affairs of Dudley Road hospital and the hospital provision for his constituency. Therefore, he speaks not only with great authority but with a background of knowledge in the


health service that goes back a long way further than mine. Conscious of that, I approach the subject with due trepidation.
The right hon. Gentleman has concentrated the attention of the House on an issue that is of real importance in the management not just of West Birmingham district health authority but the whole of the national health service, because it is central to the core activity of the NHS that we seek to secure equal access to health care for all our people, whether they come from the relatively leafy areas of Berkshire or Sussex or the more deprived areas of inner-city Birmingham. The formulae that help to determine the allocation of funds within the health service have an important part to play in the practical delivery of that basic objective.
The principle of an allocation formula that reflects a wide range of different pressures including social deprivation is not in dispute. The health service has, throughout the time of the right hon. Gentleman, had a succession of different ways to allocate funds so as to reflect identified need. The RAWP formula—that of the resource allocation working party—was used from 1976, and since the introduction of the health service reforms on 1 April we have changed to the weighted capitation formula. Both were directed to trying to deliver the objective of fair allocation of funds around the health service.
Although the objective is the same, the basis on which we seek that objective under the reformed managment of the NHS is rather different. In the old days, which the right hon. Gentleman will have known in his time as chairman of the hospital board, the health service funded the hospital directly. It was left largely to the local management to use the resources allocated to it to provide patients with the best possible care.
Now, instead of allocating funds directly to specific hospitals, we allocate funds to a health authority, which has an obligation to commission or secure health care for all people resident in its district. I believe that it is true to say that under the old system those who presented themselves at a hospital and knew how to get to the front of the queue tended to get better care than did those who were less skilled at working the system. By setting up powerful purchaser authorities within the health service we are requiring purchasing health authorities to address identified health needs for all groups within their geographic boundaries—something that did not happen previously. One of the key purposes served by that approach is that health authorities are encouraged to use the resources available to them specifically to counteract social deprivation issues such as those the right hon. Gentleman has referred to. The reformed health service seeks first to allocate funds to a purchasing health authority and then to ensure that they are used precisely to address those issues.
Clearly the key to success is the allocation mechanism and the formula that is adopted for the allocation of funds to different purchasing health districts. The formula that we adopt is determined centrally only in so far as it distributes funds from the Department down to regional level. I should like to correct one misinterpretation that the right hon. Gentleman put on recent words of my right hon. Friend. It is not true to say that there is a national formula

that regional health authorities are required to observe in the further distribution of funds from regional level to districts. There is a national formula governing distribution from central level to regional level. Below that, it is for the regional health authorities themselves to determine the formula. We have always made that clear. At that level there is not a national formula that may be departed from. Regional authorities may adopt their own formulae for the further distribution of funds to district level.

Mr. Denis Howell: I thank the Minister for making that clear. So far as we are concerned, the statement that he has just made is very profound. The situation has not previously been made clear in the Birmingham region. What I have just heard changes the whole complexion of the situation. It is now clear that our campaign will have to be directed at the regional authority rather than at the Minister or the Secretary of State.

Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, I am not suggesting that we cut ourselves off from the decisions taken in the West Midlands region. The national health service is accountable, through my right hon. Friend, to this House for all the decisions taken there. Of course, we maintain a watching brief on all the formulae that are operated by the regions. However, we believe it sensible to leave to regional discretion the detail of the regional formulae for further distribution to districts so that it may be flexible and responsive to different circumstances.
I shall deal briefly with the factors which are taken into account in the national formula and which regions are encouraged to take into account in their regional formulae for the distribution of funds. First, and most obvious, the formula has to take account of population and weighted capitation. All the emphasis tends to be on the weighting formulae, but first, and most obvious, it is necessary to take account of movements in total population numbers. One of the influences in west Birmingham is that a fall in the population is taking place, which must in fairness be reflected in the level of funding that goes to the West Birmingham health authority. That will be confirmed or otherwise by the 1991 census, when the figures are available later in the year.

Mr. Dennis Howell: I accept that and I understand the importance of the population formula. The Minister will understand that there is a small reduction in population and that the failure of some to register because of the poll tax may be a significant factor.

Mr. Dorrell: I understand that, but there is a danger of double counting. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys will be making an estimate of the degree of undercounting, and that will be included in the population figures that will be published by the OPCS.
From the specific capitation element of the formula we come to weighting. It is important for the right hon. Gentleman to separate in his mind the age structure element in the weighting, which is introduced to reflect the fact that there is a different level of demand for health-care facilities if someone is over 85 years or over than if someone comes within the five years to 14 years group. We believe that health care facilities for people who are older


than 85 are about 17 times more expensive than those for the five years to 14 years group. There is a need to take account of the age structure.
There is a need also to take account of the incidence of illness as a separate factor. There we use standardised mortality as a proxy measure. We recognise that it is an unsatisfactory proxy measure for the incidence of illness.
Finally, we must take into account—this is the factor that the right hon. Gentleman seeks to ensure that we take properly on board—the different ways that are open to us to measure deprivation. Some regions have chosen not to

include that element in their formula. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the West Midlands has taken it into account in a particular use of the standardised mortality ratio. We do not regard that as satisfactory, but we regard it as recognition of the importance of taking account of deprivation as a factor—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Two o'clock.